Proving Rape

[CentralScrtnzr]

She's operating under one of the common assumptions of feminism: that all men are potential murderers and rapists.

It's quite clear who's the real sexist in this situation.

The onus of proof is quite clearly on the side of the accuser, rather than the accused. In the same way, the onus is quite clearly on he who posits rather than he who negates. If this were not the case, I would be under the burden to prove my pants were not the home of invisible rabbits.

 

[viranimus]

Ok Op, as I didnt see anyone address this specific issue, I will. (someone might have, and I simply missed it, If so, my apologies.

Am I misunderstanding this? Is there anyone is Escapistville who can help me figure out what she was saying? And for discussion's sake, should the burden of proof be on the victim in cases like this?

Now, you have one of two ways to look at that. One legitimate but impossible, the other illegitimate and incredibly frequent, though we wont look at the illegitimate reason cause its illegitimate and unjustifiable.

The legitimate reason why a woman would be upset over the disparity of having to prove rape is because many women do not like conflict or stress. Now imagine you had to go through the horror of being raped. Conceptualize what that means, imagine the emotional response to being forcibly exposed, to have your free will subdued. Then imagine to be saddled with the burden of proof knowing that pretty much the only way to "prove" it is to immediately undergo highly invasive tests and exams that would not be what you would want to do and extensive continued exposure.

Simply put in that context the woman is justifiable. It IS bullshit that women would have to undergo an equally horrific experience just to prove they were forced to endure a truly horrific experience. It is bullshit, but unfortunately in many of these cases its basically the best and only means we have.

 

[Stu35]

To be fair at least here in Canada you cannot give consent while intoxicated so it would be rape.

Something I find odd feminists don't want to change.

Personally I believe women should take responsibility for their actions - even when drunk. Same way that men have to.

For example - drunk man shags drunk woman, woman cries rape next day, man goes to jail because woman was drunk, fact man was also drunk is not relevant.

Also:

you know that's not really what the ruling was... it only applies if one person is so inebriated they are no longer conscious and was only even added to clarify matters in cases where people claimed advance, prior and ongoing consent as a defense... it's not just like "Oh you had 2 beers in an hour so your BAC is over .08 which makes you legally intoxicated so if you have sex with anyone they can be charged with rape" ... tho the whole law is rather stupid... as someone else said about it " If your wife or girlfriend wakes you up in the middle of the night by touching or fondling you in a sexual way, she is now guilty of sexual assault as you can no longer tell her ahead of time that you do not mind that and it is ok..."

if the law was as you said having sex while drunk would be completely illegal for anyone... which would just be silly

This



Another thing I think Western society needs to look at is the way people acquitted of crimes are treated, particularly in high profile cases - as it stands, simply going to court on a rape charge is enough to severely damage a mans life, even if he is found innocent.

To give a recent, albeit somewhat unrelated example(as it relates to murder, rather than rape, two crimes almost equally heinous in my book) - Amanda Knox was finally acquitted of murder in Italy, many of my friends seem to think she "got away with it", despite their knowing nothing about the case aside from that printed in the news.

 

[Callate]

In fairness, my suspicion is that the author of the quote is using a kind of "bad shorthand". I doubt they mean to say that any woman should be able to accuse any man of rape and have them be convicted without the slightest shred of evidence or deliberation; most likely [her?] ire is directed at the continuing tendency of many rape cases to devolve into questions of the victim's character, how she was dressed, whether she might have "provoked" rape, etc.

Which is not to say she shouldn't have said that, if that was the intended meaning, but the short blurbs that go at the end of Cracked articles are rarely a place for strong, serious, in-depth discussions.

 

[Sandytimeman]

Pretty easy crime to slap guys with. A girl goes home drunk from the bars with a guy she feels is way out of her league. It makes sense in her small little brain to tell everybody that he raped her, mature women just suck it up and move on.

To be fair at least here in Canada you cannot give consent while intoxicated so it would be rape. However if you are implying that it is sort of petty and they should just move on because it was just a poor decision between two smashed individuals rather than a heinous intentional and traumatic attack than I can see where you're coming from.

So in Canada what if both parties are drunk is that considered double rape?

 

[Aprilgold]

Pretty easy crime to slap guys with. A girl goes home drunk from the bars with a guy she feels is way out of her league. It makes sense in her small little brain to tell everybody that he raped her, mature women just suck it up and move on.

They also might do it for the money. Its quite saddening and makes me afraid to want to get laid.

And if you get her pregnant for even more money from Child Support, fun times.

---------------------------

Lets face it, as humans we try to get a leg-up on everybody else, its just nature. So lets drop the giant curtain of 'Innocent' off of everyone so we can at least see this, everyone is not a shining example of humanity, at least entirely, so please. Can we drop gender rules so that we can live in a world without hate based on gender?

 

[Sandytimeman]

Pretty easy crime to slap guys with. A girl goes home drunk from the bars with a guy she feels is way out of her league. It makes sense in her small little brain to tell everybody that he raped her, mature women just suck it up and move on.

To be fair at least here in Canada you cannot give consent while intoxicated so it would be rape. However if you are implying that it is sort of petty and they should just move on because it was just a poor decision between two smashed individuals rather than a heinous intentional and traumatic attack than I can see where you're coming from.

So in Canada what if both parties are drunk is that considered double rape?

Yes, but it would only apply if both parties pressed charges. It's no different than a drunken bar fight in that reguard, both sides can get charged there too if they both cross a line.

So if two people go home together, then one cries he raped me I was drunk, he could go..NO she raped me! I was drunk!

That seems weird. Also, the Old testimate is very PRO rape...I wonder how that would hold up in a country that had a christian based government like England.

 

[DevilWithaHalo]

Is anyone besides me really annoyed that an article whose intention was clearly humorous (this is Cracked after all) is once again the catalyst behind an additionally annoyed feminists ironic rant about the supposition of male privilege in a society that requires evidence to support an accusation of guilt? Because this really starts wearing on you after a while.

Sure, we're just suppose to take any woman's accusation at face value because our history is filled with patriarchies and all men are evil. I'm a guy, I obviously can't be trusted.

 

[Lieju]

To be fair at least here in Canada you cannot give consent while intoxicated so it would be rape.

Something I find odd feminists don't want to change.

Personally I believe women should take responsibility for their actions - even when drunk. Same way that men have to.

For example - drunk man shags drunk woman, woman cries rape next day, man goes to jail because woman was drunk, fact man was also drunk is not relevant.

Whether you can give consent while drunk doesn't really have much to do with feminism. How the sex of the drunken person affects the case, however, has.

Men can get raped as well, and all kinds of sexual abuse can happen, but, unfortunately, as a result of the sexism in society, men are far less likely to report it or try to get help.
But, and correct me if I'm wrong, I thought consuming alcohol makes it difficult for men to get it up, so if they could do it, they presumably weren't as drunk as the woman might have been?

As for responsibility while drunk, it's a difficult issue. Certainly, if you choose to drink, you need to face the consequences, but on the other hand, taking advantage of a person who is so drunk it's clear they don't understand what they are doing (or passed out) is wrong.

Do you have any particular court cases to cite about Canada, and how the man being drunk has no relevance?

 

[Ralen-Sharr]

One of the strangest comments came from someone (presumably female) who said it was a sign of the oppression that victims of rape had the responsibility to prove it.

Pretty sure (though not entirely without context) this is referring to proving specifically things like "she was asking for it," which is common, loaded, and completely unfair.

People don't tell well-dressed affluent people they were asking to be robbed.

Women face a lot of challenges in terms of being raped, one of which is to even get people to pay attention. You generally dont't see this in other crimes.

One of the things that makes this case EVEN WORSE is the stupid ones that say they were raped when they weren't.

I've actually seen girls say that crap just to get attention, and all that does is make the ones who actually were look like the same.

Even if you get proven innocent, the mere accusation of rape can have horrid consequences to the accused, even though they didn't do anything wrong. This makes me think that there should be some kind of penalty for false accusation, but that could too easily backfire and cause real cases to not get reported.

 

[SageRuffin]

Huh, I thought in the case of rape the defendant was guilty until proven innocent. I distinctly remember hearing that somewhere...

 

[Sandytimeman]

That seems weird. Also, the Old testimate is very PRO rape...I wonder how that would hold up in a country that had a christian based government like England.

No, the old testament is NOT pro rape. Those are misquotes by stupid, poorly informed, or malicious people.

This seems pretty on the level to me.

http://www.evilbible.com/Rape.htm

 

[Crenelate]

Pretty easy crime to slap guys with. A girl goes home drunk from the bars with a guy she feels is way out of her league. It makes sense in her small little brain to tell everybody that he raped her, mature women just suck it up and move on.

To be fair at least here in Canada you cannot give consent while intoxicated so it would be rape. However if you are implying that it is sort of petty and they should just move on because it was just a poor decision between two smashed individuals rather than a heinous intentional and traumatic attack than I can see where you're coming from.

So in Canada what if both parties are drunk is that considered double rape?

Yes, but it would only apply if both parties pressed charges. It's no different than a drunken bar fight in that reguard, both sides can get charged there too if they both cross a line.

So if two people go home together, then one cries he raped me I was drunk, he could go..NO she raped me! I was drunk!

Yes, that is correct. It then goes to the Crown to assess the validity of each claim and determine if there is reason to press charges against one or the other or both. In that case since both would be admitting to sexual contact, the only issue in their court cases would be their attempt at making the affirmative defense.

That seems weird. Also, the Old testimate is very PRO rape...I wonder how that would hold up in a country that had a christian based government like England.

No, the old testament is NOT pro rape. Those are misquotes by stupid, poorly informed, or malicious people.

A few things to comment on here:

Oh good, the whole 'drunk rape' conversation again, this always turns out well. I would say people should refrain from sexual acts with people they don't know or trust well - which would be idealistic and impractical in itself, but most rapes are actually committed by someone the victim does know.

Also, it would be the government of the UK for one thing, and no, it's not a christian based government, our laws are secular here. Most people don't give a shit about god or religion.

Regarding the Old Testament/ Bible as a whole, there may be misquotes by stupid, poorly informed people, but a hell of a lot of the bible is also quoted by very well informed, intelligent, academics who make it their life work to argue against the malicious teachings of those same books. Morals come from humanity (in both senses of the word), not the Bible, so it really has no place either way in a discussion about rape.

 

[Stu35]

To be fair at least here in Canada you cannot give consent while intoxicated so it would be rape.

Something I find odd feminists don't want to change.

Personally I believe women should take responsibility for their actions - even when drunk. Same way that men have to.

For example - drunk man shags drunk woman, woman cries rape next day, man goes to jail because woman was drunk, fact man was also drunk is not relevant.

Whether you can give consent while drunk doesn't really have much to do with feminism. How the sex of the drunken person affects the case, however, has.

Men can get raped as well, and all kinds of sexual abuse can happen, but, unfortunately, as a result of the sexism in society, men are far less likely to report it or try to get help.
But, and correct me if I'm wrong, I thought consuming alcohol makes it difficult for men to get it up, so if they could do it, they presumably weren't as drunk as the woman might have been?

As for responsibility while drunk, it's a difficult issue. Certainly, if you choose to drink, you need to face the consequences, but on the other hand, taking advantage of a person who is so drunk it's clear they don't understand what they are doing (or passed out) is wrong.

Agree with you on all fronts. Except possibly:

Whether you can give consent while drunk doesn't really have much to do with feminism.

Whilst I agree with this point, I have only ever seen women (feminist groups in particular) get angry when they're told that if they're not careful, rape can happen to them. (Keep in mind, I never EVER believe it is the victims fault, but as soon as you suggest that women can take action to help prevent getting raped, all of a sudden thats the accusation that gets thrown around).

On the other hand, I look around the cookhouse, and I see plenty of posters aimed at men saying "Is she too drunk to say 'yes'? Then it's a definite 'no'!", and my ire at being told I'm a rapist every time I have sex with a girl I met in a club wherby the both of us are pretty slammed, is generally met with... well... this:

so if they could do it, they presumably weren't as drunk as the woman might have been?

So, if I manage to thumb in my flaccid penis, it doesn't count?

Do you have any particular court cases to cite about Canada, and how the man being drunk has no relevance?

Not Canada no, However I have recently been subjected to quite a few 'equality and diversity' briefs of varying sorts, a recent one of which the bloke giving it seemed to be under the impression that it was for men to look after themselves while drunk, whilst women held no responsibility for how shit faced they got and the consequences. It raised my ire a wee bit.

 

[Limecake]

I see plenty of posters aimed at men saying "Is she too drunk to say 'yes'? Then it's a definite 'no'!", and my ire at being told I'm a rapist every time I have sex with a girl I met in a club wherby the both of us are pretty slammed

this is better than not seeing any posters ever, it might be a touchy subject but it's a pretty important message. We currently live in a society where we teach women to protect themselves from rape but we don't teach our men to not rape (although most men wouldn't).

I agree that picking up a drunk girl doesn't count as rape, however if she can't even stand it might not be the best idea to take her home.

OT: Of course the evidence needs to be presented by the victim, it's a cold and harsh thing to ask of a rape victim. It's important because sentencing someone for one of the most heinous crimes without evidence is even worse.

even terms like 'sexual harassment' are thrown around way too much, sexual harassment does happen and it can be terrible. However, just like rape, it's a term that gets thrown around way too much.

there is a difference between your boss saying an off colour joke and him saying 'you're fired unless you sleep with me'. Just like there is a difference between a scumbag taking a drunk girl home from the bar and a man who rapes women.

 

[tomtom94]

The problem with rape is that the victim is likely to remove all traces of evidence linking him or her to the crime by virtue of a shower/bath, and thus making it very difficult to prove. I don't think there's really a lot you can do about this either, which makes it worse.

Burden of accusation has to lie on the woman however. In fact, the point that often gets overlooked is that of anonymity for rape defendants whose lives are often destroyed even if they are proven innocent.

Also: let's try and not have the old "Wear heels and get drunk = asking for it" argument again, it's quite tiresome.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

To be fair at least here in Canada you cannot give consent while intoxicated so it would be rape.

Something I find odd feminists don't want to change.

Personally I believe women should take responsibility for their actions - even when drunk. Same way that men have to.

For example - drunk man shags drunk woman, woman cries rape next day, man goes to jail because woman was drunk, fact man was also drunk is not relevant.

Whether you can give consent while drunk doesn't really have much to do with feminism. How the sex of the drunken person affects the case, however, has.

Men can get raped as well, and all kinds of sexual abuse can happen, but, unfortunately, as a result of the sexism in society, men are far less likely to report it or try to get help.
But, and correct me if I'm wrong, I thought consuming alcohol makes it difficult for men to get it up, so if they could do it, they presumably weren't as drunk as the woman might have been?

As for responsibility while drunk, it's a difficult issue. Certainly, if you choose to drink, you need to face the consequences, but on the other hand, taking advantage of a person who is so drunk it's clear they don't understand what they are doing (or passed out) is wrong.

Do you have any particular court cases to cite about Canada, and how the man being drunk has no relevance?

Canadian Law defines consent as "voluntary agreement to engage in the sexual activity in question". It also that a "self-induced intoxication" on the part of the accused (i.e. getting drunk) does not constitute a defense. I can't find any case specifically relating to drinking, but this one (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._v._J.A.), where the husband erotically asphyxiated his wife until she passed out, held that a person can only legally consent if they have an operating mind during the sexual activity (previous consent doesn't matter).

And as for the troubles with erections while drinking, from anecdotal evidence I'd say it's not impossible provided you were not completely blotto. I guess I'll have to acquire some rum and young women and test it... for science!

-snip-

I think your way of thinking is right. However, in some countries the legal hoops a woman has to jump to even get a rapist in court are so ridiculous that it is prohibitive. The US isn't the exception BTW. You also get cases where the rapist pleads that the victim looked slutty and therefore it was sort of implied she wanted to be raped and the judge might say "Fair enough. Off you go then but don't let me see you getting involved with any of these filthy sluts again, comprende?". BTW, the victim was ten years old.

I think there are still a lot of people that treat rape as a joke. We like to think it isn't so but it is. In any case, this sort of attitude is what ultimately generates reactionary opinions like "you shouldn't have to prove rape" and we can't ignore the fact that irrational behaviour stems from somewhere. I think there is a middle ground between the two positions. That's for each of us to think about.

I think that 10-year old thing is bullshit: no one that young can provide consent for anything, let alone sexual activity. Citations, please?

I'm Canadian, and I know that it can be difficult for rape victims to get their day in court, but I have also never heard the "she was asking for it" defense actually fly in court. MOAR citations, s'il vous plait.

And what do you think the middle ground is?

 

[catalyst8]

Right then. So I was recently reading an article titled, 5 Ways Modern Men are Trained to Hate Women http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-ways-modern-men-are-trained-to-hate-women.html.

Oh, it's from Cracked, no more need be said; possibly one of the most racist & sexist publications I can think of.

 

[Thunderous Cacophony]

Right then. So I was recently reading an article titled, 5 Ways Modern Men are Trained to Hate Women http://www.cracked.com/article_19785_5-ways-modern-men-are-trained-to-hate-women.html.

Oh, it's from Cracked, no more need be said; possibly one of the most racist & sexist publications I can think of.

Seriously? I know it's run mostly by white guys in their 20-30's, but it never struck me as particularly offensive to anyone (except perhaps people who don't like 80's cartoons). This article basically says guys are universally discriminatory monsters, who can only think about women in terms of sex because it's hard-wired into us, so we can never get better. Which article/website are you reading?

 

[Mr Cwtchy]

The whole situation is a mess, really.

Of course the burden of proof should be on the victim to prove they were raped. Yes, that is a terrible thing to ask of someone who may have gone through one of the most traumatising events imaginable.

Unfortunately, blindly believing every rape accusation is ludicrous. False rape accusations DO happen, and they can absolutely destroy a person's life, regardless of whether they are convicted or not. There's a thin line to follow between ensuring the accused rights are not infringed and not discouraging actual rape victims from speaking out.

If there is a better solution, I can't think of any.