BS: We are going round in circles!!

Subject: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: *Laura*
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 01:00 PM

This
is what I read in the paper today and it's so stupid.
I am studying law and by pure coincidence we're in the process of general defences. The law clearly states that consent whilst unconscious or intoxicated is not consent. However, with judges like this around to set new precedents - woop bloody woop! Things are really looking up.

So what it sets out in this article really does need to actually happen!!!

xLx

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 01:11 PM

The law clearly states that consent whilst unconscious or intoxicated is not consent.

The article actually said: "Despite the Sexual Offences Act of 2003 stating that someone who is asleep or otherwise unconscious will not be taken as having consented, the prosecution dropped the case saying, "drunken consent is still consent".

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: *Laura*
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 01:30 PM

yeh I know I wasn't quoting, I was saying what I've read in law.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: TheBigPinkLad
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 01:51 PM

So which is correct? It's kinda important.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: *Laura*
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 01:57 PM

yeh good point I'll look it up.
Sometimes different sections of the law say different things because they all get reformed and updated at different times.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: wysiwyg
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 02:12 PM

One of my favorites is that under a certain age, young people can't be said to have given consent (sex, contracts, etc.), while at the same age they can be drafted, and given quite nasty sentences for crimes.

~S~

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: *Laura*
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 04:41 PM

Anyhow - my point and reson for posting the article was - if only 5.6% of rapes get convicted, (and that's only out of the 15% reported!) something has to change. It just made me so mad reading this. I thought I'd put it to public opinion - what do you think? In my humble opinion - a woman flirting or wearing a low cut top is NOT a woman asking to be raped. Same goes for if she's been drinking. Or if she's promiscuous. But hey, according to some people I'm wrong.

xLx

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: Dead Horse
Date: 25 Nov 05 - 11:37 PM

So lets take this a bit further.....
If the guy had been drinking too (a fair assumption) then HIS cogniscence of consent will also be impaired. Therefore he cannot be guilty of rape, only of defective judgement. Unless, that is, SHE can prove that he intended to get her drunk in order to have his wicked way with her. Then it would be up to the defence to prove that she was aware of this, and used her drunken state as an excuse to abrogate responsibility.
Its a bit of a mine-field, innit?
Therefore any conviction for rape of an intoxicated female is bound to be an unsound verdict. I rest my case.

P.S. Have some madiera, m'dear?

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: *Laura*
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 07:39 AM

You're still missing my point.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 08:02 AM

Here's a clipping from the article linked to in the original post:

According to the study of attitudes toward rape in the UK, one third of those surveyed believe that women who flirt are partly at fault if someone rapes them. A third see women as being "partially or wholly" responsible for being raped if they are intoxicated. Finally, more than a quarter of those interviewed think women invite rape to some extent if they wear seductive clothing.

Now, I don't know if that was lackadaisical reporting or whether the original survey was flawed, but as presented above it seems to me that two totally different things are being mixed together here.

Firstly, there is how a crime should be treated once it has been committed: should the way the woman behaved have any influence on either whether the case is originally brought or what the sentence passed is if the assailant is convicted. In my view, no, but I recognise that we are talking about an ideal world here.

Secondly, there is the quite separate issue of whether dressing or behaving in a certain way makes a person more vulnerable to crime. And I think the answer to that has to be yes. It's true of mugging, pickpocketing, car-jacking, fraud and just about every other type of crime I can think of. Rape is no exception.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: *Laura*
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 08:08 AM

But there is a difference between being more vulnerable to something, and being at fault.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: wysiwyg
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 10:15 AM

Laura, maybe people aren't exactly missing your point, but taking the opening you gave to make a point of their own?

Are you in the UK? In the US, the laws are already set up to address your concern. There still need to be victims' advocates to be sure the laws, and not the stereotypes, are followed-- but there has been much progress. You might find more info about this from Catters if you started a new thread titled "Rape Laws & Horror Stories" or something similar. Your present thread title doesn't let folks know what you want to talk about.

~Susan

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: greg stephens
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 10:51 AM

Laura, because of the way that case has been reported, often in a very misleading way, you and a lot have people have been confused. The judge absolutely did not say that a drunken unconscious person could be said to have consented, or that you can legally rape an uncoscious person, or anything remotely like that. He said that the defendant could not be found guilty, because nobody was offering any evidence that the alleged victim had had been raped. In the circumstances no jury could convict, as the woman said she didn't remember what happened, and the man said she had consented. So, no evidence, no conviction. Whether that was a correct account of what actually happened is another questiom, of course. But as the prosecution offered no corroborative evidence, the case had to fail.
But the law is perfectly clear: of course you can't legally rape an drunken unconscious person.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: *Laura*
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 12:15 PM

Fair enough - I realise my first post wasn't very clear because I was so wound up about the statistics. That's what really got me - those statistics about people's opinions, how they can think that a crime like this can be the victim's fault. Same goes for all kinds of abuse... a lot of people, and far too many in my view, seem to think that is is in some way, or even wholly the victim's fault.
Surely that can't be right.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: *Laura*
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 12:16 PM

p.s. I deliberately made the title of this ambiguous, but don't mind if someone wants to change it.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 12:30 PM

If a person deliberately makes themself more vulnerable to having a crime commited against them, are they not partially responsible?

If you left your car keys in the ignition and your car was stolen, would you feel partially responsible?

If you went to work and left the front door wide open and you were ransacked, would you feel partially responsible?

If you went for a night out and got so drunk you could not remember a thing, then somehow got home, but again are too drunk to remember a thing, then realised in the morning all was not fine and dandy and you started having 'flash backs' to the previous night and having sex with someone you vaguely knew, would you feel partially responsible?

She doesnt know if she was raped or not. The judge did what he had to do.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 01:14 PM

If she didn't know if she was raped, then how can you prosecute for rape? You can't.

...but aside from that, yes, attitudes must change. In the past, the guilt associated with rape was enough to make any victim hold her tongue. Rapist relied on that.

It looks as if the public attitude hasn't changed much.

DMcG and Guest - Since you think that the victims of rape are partly responsible, do you also think that women should never kiss a man because it might suggest she wants to be raped? She might want to have sex but that doesn't mean she wants to be raped.

The same goes for prostitutes who are raped. Even if they are selling their bodies, it doesn't mean they want to be raped.

Rape and consensual sex are two different things.

Are you saying that if a woman goes to a friend's party and drinks too much, she should expect to be raped? I disagree completely. She may not even want consensual sex let alone rape.

It seems to me that you are saying that men can't be trusted or that men aren't responsible for their actions. You seem to imply that they don't know the difference between rape and consensual sex.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: DMcG
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 01:47 PM

Maybe I didn't make myself clear, dianavan - I believe I said there is no way that the woman's behaviour should influence whether or not a case is brought or what the sentence should be. Men *are* fully responsible for their actions and I would want to see much more cases prosecuted. Picking up one of GUESTs comments: yes, if I left my door open and was robbed, I am partly responsible. On the other hand I do not believe the CPS would refuse to prosecute such a case because 'I was asking for it', which happens far, far too often in rape cases. And I am sure that in the vast majority of cases men are clear if sex is consensual or not.

So I do not think it appropriate to say the women are 'at fault' because of how they dressed or behaved. What they are responsible for is that choice of dress or behaviour, knowing it could increase the risk. They have no responsibility whatsoever for the crime should it occur.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: GUEST
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 02:10 PM

dianavan you are missing my point. Being partially responsible for what happens in our lives is often our choice. That does not mean anyone has the right to commit an offence because of our lack of responsibility, but it doesn't take away the responsibility we should accept through our choices.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 03:46 PM

There are distinctions that can made in the types of rape that occur.

If a man breaks into a home or stalks a woman in the park and assaults her, it different than the "date rape" that happens between individuals known to each other (drinking or not). One would tend to be an act of aggression and power, the other an act of coerced sex. There are many other categories of assault, I've just picked these two to make my point.

Though in both cases penetration is achieved, the nature of the crime is different. I suspect that too often the second example is lumped into the "peccadillo" category and ignored by law enforcement. It doesn't mean this is right, I'm just saying it is unfortunately what happens.

Keeping your house burglar-proof, entering the park well-protected or at a safer time of day, and keeping your head clear are good ideas. You are responsible for yourself. This isn't always enough to prevent rape. Your clothes and your behavior are your own business, but considering the bizarre social signals we get today regarding sex and violence, Western Society is has some large dysfunctional zones.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 08:56 PM

SRS -

Rape isn't about sex at all.
Its all about power.
Coerced sex is not date rape.
Date rape and rape are the same.

Just because you know someone doesn't mean it isn't rape. Rape is most often committed by someone you know.

The nature of the crime is no different no matter what kind of rape you are talking about. Rape is rape.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 10:08 PM

Dianavan,

Platitudes, Dianavan. All platitudes. It's the party line, spoken without true understanding. And I didn't say both aren't rape, I said they are on a different level, evoking a different response.

There is a difference in the types I described. You can say there isn't, but there is. It's how it is perceived in the culture. The violent aggressive sadistic home invasion is different than the drunk man who can't take "no" for an answer or who doesn't understand when to stop. It's about people* not having learned that just because it's something YOU want that you shouldn't force it. (*Rape isn't just men against women).

Now ask me how I know.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 10:53 PM

It is my understanding that date rape quite often involves an unconscious woman, rendered so by the so-called "date-rape" drug. That she may remember nothing should have no bearing on whether there is prosecution based on hard evidence.

It pisses me off that women are still told they must watch how they dress in order to be safe, yet men think nothing of running around with no shirts, are shown in tv commercials nearly naked, etc. The whole of society is so fucked up about women's bodies and the do's and don'ts of dress, walking, gesturing, acting, dancing, etc.

I was raped by a former boyfriend who came to my house drunk. I had no idea that was what he'd planned. He was violent and there was no one nearby to hear my cries for help. The jerk had the nerve to try to hold me and apologise afterwards. Did I call the cops? No, partly because there was still a stigma against women who claimed rape by friends or family. Do I regret it? No. He went on to have a miserable life, then died. Luckily I had a good network of friends and a crisis center staff who counseled me. BUT, it still pisses me off that we have a double standard STILL of what is perceived to be acceptable for men and what that perception is for women.

A rape is a rape is a rape. No platitudes about it. Doesn't matter if one knows the rapist or not and it IS often about power, not sex.

If the case in the UK was so weak, why did the prosecutor go so far as to take it to court? They must have thought there was some just cause?

kat

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: dianavan
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 10:59 PM

SRS - I don't think you can call a statement about rape being rape, in the context of this thread, an empty platitude.

You seem to think that forced sex is not rape because the poor rapist wants sex and just doesn't know when to stop or understand the word, no!

You are an apologist for rapists and an enemy to any woman who has ever been raped under any circumstance.

Damn, you must have led an awfully sheltered life.

Either that or you hate women.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 11:15 PM

Posting deleted as per request from SRS

joe clone

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: katlaughing
Date: 26 Nov 05 - 11:34 PM

And we wonder why we can't all get together on such subjects, once and for all? Sheesh!

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: CarolC
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 01:49 PM

Dead Horse, would you apply the same standards to someone who, for instance, shot someone else while drunk? Would you say that he or she was impaired, and therefore wasn't cognizant of his or her decision to shoot someone?

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 02:02 PM

SRS - I don't even know who Susan Miller is, so I can't be accused of spouting her dogma. You are making some pretty big assumptions.

I'm sorry that you experienced rape and I'm sorry I misread your post. I think its rather obvious that, "politically and socially it doesn't get interpreted as the same thing as the circumstances vary,"

What threw me off was when you said, "...they are on a different level, evoking a different response."

I don't think they are on a 'different level' at all. They may evoke a different response from the public but the 'level' of the crime is the same. Rape is rape. I am sure you know this.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: Stilly River Sage
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 02:41 PM

Well then we disagree. I asked Joe and Kat both to remove my previous post because I was very angry at your stupidity, but upon reflection, I don't want loved ones to learn of this here, as open as I have been on the subject in other venues. Hopefully it will go away soon, but that leaves your ill-considered and entirely wrong harangue here in the thread.

You're very good at using English, and you have a number of sophisticated terms in your vocabulary. Too bad you don't have the wit to read critically or understand what it is you're actually saying when you use them. You were not only wrong, you were dense, and rather than look up Brownmiller (Google her--it takes only a moment) you just slog along with the same dogma. Your accusations are contemptibly absurd as is your speculation about my experience in the world.

I hate neither men or women, but I don't suffer fools gladly.

SRS

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 04:18 PM

SRS - I already said I was sorry for misreading your post.

I also explained that my opinion is that rape is rape and that to refer to different levels of rape is to justify the actions of some rapists. In other words, how will the courts be able to differentiate if women, themselves, think that rape occurs on many levels. Rape is rape and no means no. Thats my opinion.

Your response is to accuse me of dogma and empty platitudes. You have also made assumptions about where I got my ideas and that my opinions are wrong and that I am dense. Thats your opinion.

I have already stated my opinion of you.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: dianavan
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 04:35 PM

SRS - I just looked up Susan Brownmiller on the web (thanks for the link) and, as usual, agree with some of it but not all of it.

One thing for sure. Rape is a weapon of war. Its not about sex. Its about power.

I don't believe it is a threat that all men use against all women.

Laura - Does this explain why we seem to be going round in circles?

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 27 Nov 05 - 06:55 PM

People seem to have this weird idea that there is a limited amount of resoponsibility which has to be shared between the various parties involved in a crime, so that if one gets more the other gets less. That seems absolute nonsense to me.

We all carry seperate responsibility for our own actions. The fact that someone else may have acted in a way that gave us an occasion to do something wrong does nothing at all to let us off the hook.

It's self evident there are ways of behaving that makes us more likely to be the victims of a criminal act. We can leave our car keys in the lock when we pop into the shops, we can walk around with our wallet sticking out of our hip pocket, we can naively give our credit card details to some stranger on the Internet.

When we do that and we get ripped off we are quite right to blame ourselves, and other people are right to blame us as well - but that doesn't in any way reduce the guilt of the thief who takes advantage of our stupidity. And, of course, in no way does it mean that other people who got ripped off, without having made those kind of mistakes, are to blame for what happened to them.

So why do people see it as so different when it comes to the crime of rape? Acting in a way that makes you particularly vulnerable doesn't reduce the legal or moral guilt of the rapist, and shouldn't in any way reduce the penalty imposed, but that doesn't mean it's not pretty stupid. And I'm sure that that is what a lot of those people in that survey meant when they said that in some cases women were, to some extent, responsible for what happened to them.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: Wolfgang
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 10:48 AM

The conviction rate of 5.6 % seems incredibly low to me (even when corrected to the 5.8 % that the other newspapers report).

So I did some quick(re)search:
The conviction rate for rape in Germany is 27 % (for better comparison: the conviction rate for robbery is 37 %). Those 73 % not convicted for rape are often still convicted for the crime ('assault' for instance) though for some technical reason it may not be called a conviction for rape.

In comparison to that he British figure looks wrong. At least that's what I hope for I would hate it if that figure was even remotely correct.

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: *Laura*
Date: 29 Nov 05 - 01:42 PM

And that's only 5.6% (or 5.8%) of the 15% that are reported. But maybe that's just the ones that are convicted of 'rape' rather than assault etc...

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: *Laura*
Date: 03 Dec 05 - 07:44 PM

Dead Horse - I just re-read your post. Really it should be if the DEFENDANT had been drinking it will be an unsound verdict - not the victim. It MAY be an unsound verdict of course.

Of course everyone could be safer if they stayed at home wrapped in cotton wool and never went out drinking, but I don't think it should even cross people's minds - let alone become an issue in a court of law - that the victim is somehow to blame for the crime because of the way they behaved.

It would be like telling a schoolkid 'yeh you're being bullied but we're not going to do anything to the bully because to be honest you shouldn't wear glasses and do your homework - it's just making yourself vulnerable to it'.

Yes people should be careful - but they shouldn't have to change their lifestyle a drastic amount in order to be safe.
And McG of H was spot on saying - even if the victim increased their vulnerability themselves - it doesn't in any way lessen the guilt of the criminal.

*sigh* vented again.
xLx
p.s here is an article which pretty much sums up my opinion. Except that even this overlooks the fact that it shouldn't even cross people's minds that staying at home or not drinking is a solution. a precaution - yes. a solution - definitely not.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: Ebbie
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 08:18 PM

Thank the powers that I have never been in serious danger of forcible rape- although I once left a car to walk home.

That disclaimer aside, I obviously miss something when I say that I don't understand anyone who says or feels that a woman does not invite certain behaviors in response to certain stimuli.

I remember once getting into a long philosophical conversation with a platonic friend late at night alone with him in my own home - about sex, of all things.   Trust me, I did NOT see him to the door!

Forcible rather than consensual sex to me are two different animals. Had I (I did NOT) got myself deeper than I wished to with my friend and found myself fighting him in an ultimately futile attempt at resistance, I would definitely have accepted my share of the blame. It does not mean, depending on the eventual circumstance, that I would not have considered bringing charges against him.

Rape from an intruder or a gang or via pills in my mind is cause for extreme action. If someone were attacking me and someone else came along and killed him/them I would not feel it was too extreme an action. Note that I do not mean that rape should be a capital punishment.

I'm afraid that I also believe that men and boys are being given wildly mixed messages today. Women and girls may be as sexual beings as the male of the species but, imo, we express it differently. How many women do you know would continue with the sex act when someone unexpectedly walked into the room? (I once made my lover laugh helplessly when I heard a noise outside the door and literally bounced him off me. So now you know...*G*) Men, on the other hand, may develop a serious case of singlemindedness.

How many women and girls do you know who consider droopy drawers with the crotch down to the knees a turn on? How many men and boys, on the other hand, do NOT find female skin, fetchingly draped, delectable? And I don't buy it that women and girls are not aware of the male reaction- just take a look at the change in their attire when they visit the elderly.*G*

Sometimes it seems to me that men are actually more civilized than women are- they have farther to travel!

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: GUEST
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 08:25 PM

For me this thread highlights the need for females (and yes I am one) to accept responsibility for their actions. It is all well and good for some to say " But I should be able to parade around half naked without being molested." And yes you should. But then we grow up and mature and realise that the world is not how we want it to be, it is sometimes unfair.

Once that realisation dawns on us we either take responsibility for our own safety as much as we can, or we bleat on and on about idealism.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: dianavan
Date: 04 Dec 05 - 11:35 PM

Yes, and men should also take emotional responsibility for sexual activity.

In the case of a drunken female - there are men who would escort the female safely home and those who would take advantage of the situation and rape. Its not too difficult to determine the guilty from the innocent.

As to the drunken condition of the woman. Does that mean any woman who drinks too much, in any circumstance, should be partially guilty if she is raped? I don't think so.

There is no law against drinking but there is a law against rape.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 03:49 AM

Above is a classic example of failing to understand personal responsibility. Nowhere did I say lack of it gives a man a right to rape a woman. But of course that is how is has been read. Weekend binge drinking by females is on the rise in a big way. And it doesn't help their situation. Whether they believe that or not is their choice. In the areas where they do have choice they should use it wisely.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: GUEST,DB
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 04:39 AM

In my opinion rape is a heinous crime, under all circumstances - and it does tend to be about power rather than sex.
The trouble is that many people, of both sexes, can mis-use power. Most attractive women are fully aware of the power that they have over men - and some of them are tempted to mis-use it. I think that some young women, who stumble about our city centres at night, half naked, are saying, "you can look, you can get turned on, but you can't touch!" This is an abuse of power ... and a rather foolish and naive one. Nevertheless, any man who responds to this challenge by raping one of these young women is guilty of a wicked crime and should be punished by the full force of the law. As other posters to this thread have pointed out a sense of personal reponsibility is essential here.
I am fully aware that some people are going to tell me that this situation is fundamentally unfair to women. Yes, of course it is! In a sense, biology is unfair to women - sexual encounters, of any kind, are fundamentally more risky for women than for men.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: Bunnahabhain
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 06:21 AM

In a sense, biology is unfair to women


I do not think it is possible to describe something as unfair when it is something that cannot be changed.

Unequal, yes, but not unfair.

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: GUEST
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 06:34 AM

Also the rise in 'false' rape allegations (by women) that hit the headlines, because Miss X claims she was raped by a premier league football player etc etc etc do women no good at all. It seems to be becoming fashionable to have a night out in a club where 'stars' of the field drink, go back to their hotel room, then sell the story to the first rag with a cheque book.

Invariably these cases collapse or go no further than the tabloid story. Who is the 'victim' in these cases?

Subject: RE: BS: We are going round in circles!!
From: GUEST,DB
Date: 05 Dec 05 - 11:21 AM

Yes, Bunnahabhain, "unequal" is a better word, in this context, than "unfair" - thanks for pointing that out. Mind you, I did use the qualifying phrase, 'in a sense', though.
Nevertheless, some people don't even seem to know the difference between such words and continue to insist that the world conform to some unattainable ideal.