Politician causes outrage over "rape" comments

[Altanese]

I agree to a certain extent. Statutory rape IS different, but it falls closer to child molestation or sex with the mentally handicapped. It's not so much whether or not consent is given, but that they are not in a state of mind to be able to give lawful consent.

As for any other kind of rape? Yes, they are all equally bad. Actually, contrary to what most people think, the vast majority of rapists are not people who hide in bushes waiting for a woman to walk by or stalkers who stake out then kidnap someone. Most rapes are by friends, neighbors, and especially boyfriends and husbands. Of course, this is only accounting for females raped by males, which goes unreported enough as it is due to a negative social stigma attached to the victims, but males raped by males or females is treated as humorous in the media and not a big deal by society, so it often goes completely unreported by and large.

Every single one of these cases, however, is a violation. There is no excuse for it, and there are no apologies sufficient enough.

I'll just leave this here...

http://mendthiscrack.files.wordpress.com/2010/04/rape-apologist-bingo.jpg

 

[Saelune]

Let's face it, there is definitely something different between having sex with 15 year old, "consenting" girl - and physically attacking, hurting and psychologically damaging a women.

Firstly: I would argue rape can occur to men, despite the letter of the law.

Second: coercing a fifteen-year-old (and it is coercing) to have sex with you (rape them) might be less physically damaging, but I don't like the general feel of this OP. I know you're not saying it's okay - in fact you are saying it isn't, it's just lesser - it just rubs me the wrong way.

More on topic: there is a reason there are many, many, many different rape charges and greatly varying sentences.

*faceplam at this one*

Well, he was more saying Statutory rape is misleading. Makes me think of that court movie with Mathiew McConnaheigh (no idea how to spell it) and Samual L Jackson.

One of his experts had been charged with statutory rape in the past and everyone was shocked. Then Matt's character points out "What if he was 20, she was 17, and today they are married with 3 kids?"

 

[Saelune]

One of his experts had been charged with statutory rape in the past and everyone was shocked. Then Matt's character points out "What if he was 20, she was 17, and today they are married with 3 kids?"

That doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed that needs to be addressed. There are many, many cases of child abuse that go on for the duration of the child's life, wherein that child goes on to love their abusing parent and seemingly live a happy life. There are too women and men who are beaten and bullied by their spouses and partners who claim to love and even adore their attacker. You can go further and look at rape victims who become pregnant and keep their child.

It's a dangerous minefield of psychology and man made law, rape. I consider myself lucky to have survived with little more than a terrible memory and a hatred for my attacker.

Im not arguing against any of that. But I doubt generalizing rape is going to help any.

 

[Hgame]

Okie dokie, here's the story: http://www.dw-world.de/dw/article/0,,15089751,00.html

Basically, what the guy was trying to say is that not all forms of rape are the same, and that sentences should be carried out depending on the nature of the crime. I agree.

Unfortunately, people got up in arms about this claim and argued that "rape is rape". I'm sorry but issues in life are very rarely black and white. People need to remove their blinders and just think for a second before turning to outrage whenever someone makes a point about a contentious issue.

And that's exactly what rape is; a highly contentious issue. No one likes to talk about it because it is such an abhorrent crime, but let's face it, there is definitely something different between having sex with 15 year old, "consenting" girl - and physically attacking, hurting and psychologically damaging a women.

I'm sick of politicians having to attach their blinders and lie through their teeth just to appease the populace. "Vivienne Hayes, head of the Women's Resource Centre, said Clarke's comments 'smack not only of ignorance but of outright misogyny.'" Fuck her. She's the ignorant one for believing that rape is rape is rape. And it's people like her that are stopping our Politicians from making intelligent arguments in public; people like her that are making public figures afraid to speak their minds.

Well, I've made my position on the story clear (I think), what about you guys??

TL;DR: Rape is a very bad thing, but people need to realise that there is always lesser forms of a crime, deserving more lenient punishments.

The comment causing outrage was not that statutory rape is not as bad, but that date rape (~when the victim is drugged and the raped, almost always by a friend of the victim), is less serious than other forms of rape. However I do think the media furore has gone too far, now that we know that he got date rape and statutory rape mixed up.

 

[Saelune]

One of his experts had been charged with statutory rape in the past and everyone was shocked. Then Matt's character points out "What if he was 20, she was 17, and today they are married with 3 kids?"

That doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed that needs to be addressed. There are many, many cases of child abuse that go on for the duration of the child's life, wherein that child goes on to love their abusing parent and seemingly live a happy life. There are too women and men who are beaten and bullied by their spouses and partners who claim to love and even adore their attacker. You can go further and look at rape victims who become pregnant and keep their child.

It's a dangerous minefield of psychology and man made law, rape. I consider myself lucky to have survived with little more than a terrible memory and a hatred for my attacker.

Im not arguing against any of that. But I doubt generalizing rape is going to help any.

I'm sorry, what do you mean by that? I think I understand, but forgive me if my interpretation is inaccurate. Is it that not all legally defined rape has a victim?

That... I'm hesitant to agree with. I see what you are saying and it is true a certain sense. But it is also the can of worms that a certain group of people would like to open. Namely those who see younger people (children) as potential sexual partners.

I believe the law on this does its job. Wait until the person is deemed mentally capable of making that decision to consent before you act. That's all I really wish to say on that issue.

I just think pretty much everything is a case by case issue. While rape is a terrible thing, sometimes I think the topic and issue of rape makes people get into a stupid mindset that sometimes gets out of hand. Im not condoning rape. Im not condoning old men having sex with kids. But Ive been 16 dating an 18 year old. I did not have sex with them, but not because I did not want to. I think I was capable of knowing what I was doing. Ofcourse, I think the whole statutory rape issue applies more to late teen cases than young/pre teens.
Also as for more severe cases, again, some people get blinded by the word rape and jump to asumptions.
To be fair, that more has to do with when there was no actual rape. I would be hard pressed to think of a situation where a violent rape was ok.

Edit: And who is to say when someone is ready? Some people are always incapable. Some younger people are more capable than older people. Technically, from a biological view, we cant be sure whats right for us until our mid twenties.

 

[Vanguard_Ex]

Why is there even debate over this? The law already provides that there are differing levels of rape. For example, statutory and marital as opposed to, well, regular?
It may seem callous and a cold system to some, but it has to be: the law has no room for pussyfooting about, and if any system in the world needs to be able to map out the complexity of human behaviour, it's the law.

 

[Gigano]

...
To be fair, a thought question: if there is even a niggling of doubt or regret about the actions, what do you think that perhaps says about the consent of the individual the night before? I ask this not to challenge you, but just thinking out loud and your post provided a segue. If there is absolute, enthusiastic consent, how likely is regret to be present?


Bear with me while I think aloud:


Often, there may be regret if a person had sex while under the influence of alcohol. In several US states, an intoxicated person CANNOT consent. So, that would fall under a gray rape area.

Perhaps there is regret over a lack of contraception. That could potentially raise questions about the stipulations of the sexual act - was the use of contraception discussed, or did the act simply happen. Is it possible within that framework to have doubt or even feelings of non-consent?

Or another issue: was there VERBAL consent? Did the participant who regrets the act want to have sex, or did they just get caught up and felt that they COULDN'T say no? Consent relies not on the negative, but on the positive - the active consent of both parties must be given. That means there must be a present of yes, be it verbal or through cooperative non-verbal cues.


I think out loud and posit these ideas mainly to point out that it's not necessarily so easy to just dismiss someone who 'regrets' the day after the sex act happens. Sometimes, things just feel WRONG. You may not realize until after the fact that you didn't actually say YES, but you felt that you couldn't say NO. And these are important situations that should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis carefully, and not necessarily outright dismissed.

Not that this will always be the case, necessarily. Sometimes, people just make decisions that they think are right for them in the moment, and end up being bad decisions. But, I think often there is more to tease out from that scenario.

Again, not attacking you - just thinking (typing) aloud.

So you would criminalize the following scenario:

A plain-looking girl walks into a bar, and spots a hot guy whom she knows would never ordinarily look her way. She chats him up, buys him a few beers, and after a six-pack or two he suddenly views her in a somewhat different light, alcohol having lowered his inhibitions and critical sense. They subsequently go her place and eagerly hit the hay.

The next morning the guy wake up with a bad case of morning after regrets: could've sworn she looked a bit more like Jessica Alba last night, and what will the girlfriend say? So he calls in that he has been raped, and the girl gets arrested and put on trial, for a close scrutiny of whether she's a vile rapist.

That seem reasonable?

I for one don't think so. If you go to town and consume alcohol, then you've knowingly and willingly accepted the risk that your inhibitions and level of critical thinking will be lowered, and that you might end up doing things you'll later regret. And sure, the morning after you might wake up with something looking like it came right out of an H. P. Lovecraft novel, but so long as you are of legal age and mental maturity, and happily consented in your selfinflicted drunken state, then it should be no matter for the law and courts to waste their time on. Our guy will just have to accept that he screwed up, try to mend things with the girlfriend, and get on with his life; Without trying to send anyone to jail for his drunkenness.

And there are plenty of other factors which can undermine some idealistic notion of a "perfect consent" as well besides alcohol. Some ill-motived asshole offering kind words to a girl with trouble on the home front might also get further than he would had she not been in a vulnerable situation, but how are you going to outlaw that? Prohibit people in emotionally fragile situations from making love? Have everyone avoid physical closeness with them due to knowing the risk that the matter will go to court should they later regret?

Ability to have an ordinary modern love life aside, punitive laws are also very poor tools when regulating what falls under the sphere of privacy. Education, social services, and informal societal contempt of wrongdoing is what works there.

One should not be blind to the fact that there is an ideological side to this as well. I'd say there are some conservative puritan undertones at work here in some parts of this movement. When you can no longer get anyone to listen to the whole "pre-marital sex is sinful" crap, then you can always put the fear of god in them by criminalizing ordinary human behaviour and the imperfect missteps it entail. Such considerations undoubtedly lie behind the American state laws against drunken consent as well (I'd hazard a guess that they're found mainly in conservatively slanted states).

Ultimately, adults of legal age and mental maturity are responsible for their own actions and choices, even if those choices are made in situations well outside the perfect Zen state (in this case even a situation they knowingly and willingly put themselves in). Let humans be humans, and let them accept responsibility for and learn from their regrets, rather spinelessly flee them by accusing others.

 

[zeldagirl]

So you would criminalize the following scenario:

A plain-looking girl walks into a bar, and spots a hot guy whom she knows would never ordinarily look her way. She chats him up, buys him a few beers, and after a six-pack or two he suddenly views her in a somewhat different light, alcohol having lowered his inhibitions and critical sense. They subsequently go her place and eagerly hit the hay.

The next morning the guy wake up with a bad case of morning after regrets: could've sworn she looked a bit more like Jessica Alba last night, and what will the girlfriend say? So he calls in that he has been raped, and the girl gets arrested and put on trial, for a close scrutiny of whether she's a vile rapist.

That seem reasonable?

I for one don't think so. If you go to town and consume alcohol, then you've knowingly and willingly accepted the risk that your inhibitions and level of critical thinking will be lowered, and that you might end up doing things you'll later regret. And sure, the morning after you might wake up with something looking like it came right out of an H. P. Lovecraft novel, but so long as you are of legal age and mental maturity, and happily consented in your selfinflicted drunken state, then it should be no matter for the law and courts to waste their time on. Our guy will just have to accept that he screwed up, try to mend things with the girlfriend, and get on with his life; Without trying to send anyone to jail for his drunkenness.

And there are plenty of other factors which can undermine some idealistic notion of a "perfect consent" as well besides alcohol. Some ill-motived asshole offering kind words to a girl with trouble on the home front might also get further than he would had she not been in a vulnerable situation, but how are you going to outlaw that? Prohibit people in emotionally fragile situations from making love? Have everyone avoid physical closeness with them due to knowing the risk that the matter will go to court should they later regret?

Ability to have an ordinary modern love life aside, punitive laws are also very poor tools when regulating what falls under the sphere of privacy. Education, social services, and informal societal contempt of wrongdoing is what works there.

One should not be blind to the fact that there is an ideological side to this as well. I'd say there are some conservative puritan undertones at work here in some parts of this movement. When you can no longer get anyone to listen to the whole "pre-marital sex is sinful" crap, then you can always put the fear of god in them by criminalizing ordinary human behaviour and the imperfect missteps it entail. Such considerations undoubtedly lie behind the American state laws against drunken consent as well (I'd hazard a guess that they're found mainly in conservatively slanted states).

Ultimately, adults of legal age and mental maturity are responsible for their own actions and choices, even if those choices are made in situations well outside the perfect Zen state (in this case even a situation they knowingly and willingly put themselves in). Let humans be humans, and let them accept responsibility for and learn from their regrets, rather spinelessly flee them by accusing others.

I totally get what you're saying. But I also understand why this law exists. In your scenario, you presented two adults who, though under the influence of alcohol, 'eagerly' went at it. There is still a gray area in this scenario, absolutely, but I can perhaps see why you make your argument based off of it. And in that context, yeah, the argument does make sense, and I wouldn't necessarily criminalize it, if indeed they both enthusiastically consented. But let's look at a different scenario:

Same guy and girl. She buys him drinks, and he gets WASTED. Completely intoxicated, not just buzzed to the point of feeling slightly impaired but still really into the girl. Slurring his speech, relying on her for support. She gets him in a cab, takes him home. There, she begins kissing him, and he kind of participates, but not enthusiastically, and he is really out of it. He's sluggish, and slow to respond. She proceeds to have sex with him.

That's rape. Because in that scenario, he could not consent, even non-verbally. YET, in our society, we still have this mindset that consent = the absence of no. When really, consent is the explicit or implicit presence of YES. Our society still has the mind set of 'well, they didn't say no, so it wasn't rape.' The consent and alcohol laws exist to protect people who may be intoxicated and then are raped, but don't have the faculties or wits to say no.

This scenario has happened before. A person will take someone home and sleep with that person, despite that person being completely out of it. That person might not put up a struggle, might just 'go with the flow' but they are impaired and cannot stop the other person.

You bring up a good point, someone's drunken yes should have some merit, and it shouldn't be used against a person just because the other regrets the sex. But, I believe consent and alcohol laws were created to protect those people who were raped and then silenced because they were told 'well, yeah you were drunk, but you didn't say no!' That's what I mean by consent, and that's what the law means by consent. We take for granted that silence = consent, and the law combats that.

You're also right in saying, if you drink alcohol, you need to take responsibility over your actions. But the consent law exists not to necessarily protect you from YOUR own actions, but to protect you from OTHERS actions. Not to mention, you assume in this scenario that everyone who is under the influence has *willingly consumed* alcohol. Consent and alcohol laws also exist to protect those individuals who may go to a bar to drink responsibly, and then end up having their drink spiked, or made to be more alcoholic than they intended or anticipated. Yet, you will still find cases where juries are hesitant to convict someone who spikes another person's drink or plies them with alcohol unknowingly because the victim 'put themselves in that situation'.

When it comes to alcohol and consent, there is a fine line between wanting people to accept responsibility for their actions and 'victim blaming.' People should be free to go to a bar and have a few drinks without the fear that someone will prey upon or take advantage of them. That's another reason why these laws exist.

Essentially, the law, while not perfect (many aren't), tries to protect individuals. Often, victims are dismissed because 'they had been drinking,' and that shouldn't be the case.

 

[Gigano]

...But let's look at a different scenario:

Same guy and girl. She buys him drinks, and he gets WASTED. Completely intoxicated, not just buzzed to the point of feeling slightly impaired but still really into the girl. Slurring his speech, relying on her for support. She gets him in a cab, takes him home. There, she begins kissing him, and he kind of participates, but not enthusiastically, and he is really out of it. He's sluggish, and slow to respond. She proceeds to have sex with him.

I'd hold that he'd still be responsible for his participation then, unless 1): His mind had completely blacked out, 2): He had no physical control over his body, or 3): He was being physically constrained by her/had - however weakly - signalled his unwillingness to go along with her advances.

Him imbibing the alcohol himself, chatting with the girl, and overall going along with the whole thing like a docile sheep - while conscious and not physically helpless - constitutes an implicit consent. It sure as hell isn't an ideal one, the girl is an asshole for not restraining herself, and he'll presumably have some morning after regrets, but it's nothing that'll meet the legal criteria for conviction of there being no consent beyond any reasonable doubt.

He went along with it at the time, participated however drunkenly, and cannot retroactively change that fact when the next morning he finds out that his bedmate looks like Cthulu's grandmother. He must simply face up to his drunkard mistake, pray his carelessness did not earn him an STD or a child, and otherwise move along with what will eventually be one more horror story to tell the mates (I've heard several from friends male and female who after a particularly festive night out have woken up with "prizes" they didn't really remember picking out; none of them would ever have thought of that as rape, and nor can I).

That's rape. Because in that scenario, he could not consent, even non-verbally. YET, in our society, we still have this mindset that consent = the absence of no. When really, consent is the explicit or implicit presence of YES. Our society still has the mind set of 'well, they didn't say no, so it wasn't rape.' The consent and alcohol laws exist to protect people who may be intoxicated and then are raped, but don't have the faculties or wits to say no.

This scenario has happened before. A person will take someone home and sleep with that person, despite that person being completely out of it. That person might not put up a struggle, might just 'go with the flow' but they are impaired and cannot stop the other person.

If they are truly unconscious or physically unable to signal reluctance, then yes, it's a clear case of rape.

If on the other hand their inhibitions and critical thinking have merely vanished, then it's their own responsibility as adults of legal age and mental maturity.

Only when there can be no reasonable doubt that the former is the case should the law step in and mercilessly punish the offender.

You bring up a good point, someone's drunken yes should have some merit, and it shouldn't be used against a person just because the other regrets the sex. But, I believe consent and alcohol laws were created to protect those people who were raped and then silenced because they were told 'well, yeah you were drunk, but you didn't say no!' That's what I mean by consent, and that's what the law means by consent. We take for granted that silence = consent, and the law combats that.

Considering that rape is generally understood as the perpetrator forcing him/herself upon the victim, I'm not sure that the complete passivity against sexual advances of a conscious person in physical control of their body cannot be assigned some weight towards an implicit consent. At least when there have been prior flirtatious contact between the parties.

It's possible that this law might indeed help combat a few instances of actual rape - where the victim is unconscious or paralysed - but it's much too excessive in de facto criminalizing much of what regularly goes on in the nightlife.

You're also right in saying, if you drink alcohol, you need to take responsibility over your actions. But the consent law exists not to necessarily protect you from YOUR own actions, but to protect you from OTHERS actions.

Part of your own responsibility is how one reacts to the suggestions of others. If somebody suggest they you hit the hay with them, and you drunkenly say yes,

Not to mention, you assume in this scenario that everyone who is under the influence has *willingly consumed* alcohol. Consent and alcohol laws also exist to protect those individuals who may go to a bar to drink responsibly, and then end up having their drink spiked, or made to be more alcoholic than they intended or anticipated. Yet, you will still find cases where juries are hesitant to convict someone who spikes another person's drink or plies them with alcohol unknowingly because the victim 'put themselves in that situation'.

I wouldn't be too hesitant to convict there, as the perpetrator had then taken control of the situation away from an unprepared victim at a very early point.

When it comes to alcohol and consent, there is a fine line between wanting people to accept responsibility for their actions and 'victim blaming.' People should be free to go to a bar and have a few drinks without the fear that someone will prey upon or take advantage of them. That's another reason why these laws exist.

They should however also be free to sex each other up once they've had a few drinks, without worrying that consent will retroactively be withdrawn when morning comes.

Essentially, the law, while not perfect (many aren't), tries to protect individuals. Often, victims are dismissed because 'they had been drinking,' and that shouldn't be the case.

It protects these particular individuals and their interests, while while jeopardizing the legal positions of all the many who frequently and happily engage in drunken sex, having a chilling effect on their ability to live the sexually liberal lifestyle of their choice.

Ultimately, it's all about drawing the unclear line between your own drunken mistakes and the abuse and exploitation of persons who've gone from "drunk" to "helpless". Obviously ideology and how seriously you view sex to be will factor in, but to me the laws a presented here sound too excessive, and slanted towards promoting a particular lifestyle of sobriety, monogamy etc. Though as I haven't read them nor seen how they're practised in case law, I might have no trouble at all with them.

 

[Ekonk]

I think rape is rape.

Wether you do it because you are desperate or, more likely, statisically speaking, because you are a violent sadist bastard, it's still just as horrible for the woman involved.