I'm getting really tired of this strawman argument. If two people are that drunk, sex isn't likely happening. We're not talking about a bit tipsy - we're talking about can't talk, can barely walk and occasionally vomits on a pet drunk. If they do manage to have sex then, no, it probably isn't rape.The situation we're talking about is where one of the people, usually the woman, is clearly being negatively affected by driunk. It's pretty simple - if they're negatively affect by what they have drunk, or drugs taken, or illness, or mental health issues, or alien mind control probes, don't sleep with them. If you have any reason to doubt they might not be completely capable of making an informed decision, then don't sleep with them.
This is pretty damned basic, really - you having an orgasm is not worth the risk of raping a woman, so eer on the side of caution. I'm sorry if this is sounding angry, but frankly, I am getting fairly irritated here. How is this even debatable?
It's not a strawman argument, it's a hypothetical.
You continue on as if there is a clear and obvious line between "just tipsy" and too drunk to consent. All I'm saying is, since everyone is different, that line isn't the same across all people.There's a wide spectrum between slightly buzzed and sloshed.
Someone who is tipsy is unable to consent. In other words, their vocal consent is not legally viable, not that they literally can't vocalize it.
I'm sorry if it sounds flip, or it sounds like a straw man, I'm merely trying to explain to two people who admit they don't drink what it's like to be drunk.
There are levels, and people have different behavior when drunk. As I said above, I'm still entirely lucid when I'm well and truly sloshed. I mean, like, barely standing from my perspective, other people don't know I'm drunk. I don't slur my speech or wobble too much, but inside my head is spinning and I feel dizzy. Under this circumstance, which I admit sounds like a straw man but I'm speaking from personal experience, is it rape for my girlfriend to take me home and get jiggy with me?
Here's the difference between sex while inebriated and sexual assault.
You're at a party. You've been eyeing up a certain lady (or gentleman; there's been more than enough heteronormativity in this thread as it is!) your friend introduced you to earlier that night, and decide to approach him/her with your best line about getting acquainted with goblinoid sociopolitical revolutions or some such.
Maybe you're a little tipsy, and so is s/he, but neither of you are so far gone to be too badly affected. Liquid courage is what's inspiring you to approach him/her in the first place! S/he totally digs your views on intersectionality and you two head off to a dark room somewhere together. This is not sexual assault.
Or maybe s/he's just finished playing a particularly lengthy drinking game and is having trouble walking. Maybe s/he can't focus on your face very well, or maybe s/he keeps partially passing out where you sit. Maybe s/he's not responding very intelligibly to your quips about Trotskyism. You decide to see if s/he's interested in sexytimes, and s/he seems open to the idea, despite being clearly very drunk. This is sexual assault.
It doesn't matter if it's your significant other of twenty years or some random person you picked up at the pub: if they're so drunk they are clearly in no state of mind to clearly consider what is going on, they cannot consent to sex.
Hi Ms. Margatroid! Welcome to the thread. I'm sure you'll regret it, but it's great to have some rational feminism presented, so I'm happy you're here.
By the way you're the first person to actually use an example that actually comports with the real definition of consent in criminal jurisprudence.
I hate 90% of the people on this thread.
So far, I get a rough count of 45 people who have posted to this thread.
Of them, 17 have been pretty vociferous in that this "seduction guide" sucks.
8 of them have been, I don't know, "pro-rape" or something. I included myself at the top of this list, even though I have opined, over and over again, that this is terrible advice, but, whatever.
20 have limited their contributions to either free speech issues, anti-goblin racism, fine points of assault and battery law, or were, at least to my skimming, otherwise uncategorizable (although the majority of them, I assume from past encounters, would come down on the "Down with Mr. Tofu!" side).
Depending on what you want to do with the uncategorizable ones, I think you only hate between 17% and 62% of the posters to this thread.
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Hi Ms. Margatroid! Welcome to the thread. I'm sure you'll regret it, but it's great to have some rational feminism presented, so I'm happy you're here.
Hi. I always fail my Will save, MeanDM. Glad to offer my point of view, at least until I get too frustrated and hide the thread (again). :P
At this point I'd advise ignoring him. There's really nothing of value gained by debating him. Flag the really offensive stuff and discuss the topic with the others.
I'm getting really tired of this strawman argument.
Yep. Just ignore me.
As, apparently, you've been doing all along. The problem being you were ignoring me while quoting me, and then acting baffled when I took your response for a response.
It's not a strawman argument, it's a hypothetical.
You continue on as if there is a clear and obvious line between "just tipsy" and too drunk to consent. All I'm saying is, since everyone is different, that line isn't the same across all people.There's a wide spectrum between slightly buzzed and sloshed.
Someone who is tipsy is unable to consent. In other words, their vocal consent is not legally viable, not that they literally can't vocalize it.I'm sorry if it sounds flip, or it sounds like a straw man, I'm merely trying to explain to two people who admit they don't drink what it's like to be drunk.
There are levels, and people have different behavior when drunk. As I said above, I'm still entirely lucid when I'm well and truly sloshed. I mean, like, barely standing from my perspective, other people don't know I'm drunk. I don't slur my speech or wobble too much, but inside my head is spinning and I feel dizzy. Under this circumstance, which I admit sounds like a straw man but I'm speaking from personal experience, is it rape for my girlfriend to take me home and get jiggy with me?
I don't drink. Doesn't mean I never have. For a friend's birthday party I took a large bottle of Smirnoff Vodka - which I then drank. So I have some experience with being drunk
I'm pretty clear - if they're too drunk, don't do it. If there is any doubt, don't do it. The line isn't clear? Then make sure you stay the hell away from it. It is very, very simple - making sure they are in a state to consent is always, always the priority.
If you have any doubt, for any reason, do not sleep with a person. Yeah, everyone is different, so err on the side of caution. That's what I'm saying - that's what I've been saying all day. Which part of that do you disagree with?
Bully for the law. But unless you are seriously trying to argue that so long as a woman is sober enough to be not be unconscious it can't be rape, that's a load of crap.
Here, how about this - if she can't walk unaided and talk unslurred, she's probably too drunk for sex?
Which was where I drew the line. Here how about this. If she couldn't get into a car and attempt to drive than she is too drunk for sex. Because legally she is still accountable for any action that she can perform. Like if she murdered the guy making a pass at her, she would still go to prison for murder regardless of how drunk she was.
I don't believe that's true. I don't think tipsy renders you legally unable to consent. To sex or pretty much anything. You can, for example, sign legal contracts after a three martini lunch.
On the rest of your point, are you really saying that because people are different and there is no "clear and obvious" line, that there is no level of drunkenness that reaches "unable to consent"? Even passed out? Even unable to vocalize?
No, I'm not saying there's no level of drunkenness that reaches unable to consent. What I'm saying is there is no clear line.
The absolute extreme case is very clear. What isn't clear is WHERE EXACTLY the boundary is between consent and inability to consent.
As you have just pointed out in your previous post, the law doesn't know where it is either. Which is likely a big part of the problem.
As for the 3 martini lunch thing this is interesting. It's not as cut and dried as you seem to think. Indeed, people routinely sue (and win) to get out of contracts signed when drunk.
Marthkus, you are coming veeery close to saying a drunk person is at fault for being sexually assaulted, and that makes me incredibly sad.
What post are you referring to?
None of the ones I can see say anything of the kind.| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The woman I lived with for a couple of years was a teetotaler.
I, on the other hand, am a devoted fan of intoxicants in their entire range of wondrous varieties.
As the Bard once wrote, "drink...provokes the desire, but takes away the performace." So, there were indeed, a couple of times there where she'd try to initiate sex while I was blotto and I'd be unable to perform. [Cue Dead Kennedys track]
I can't believe I cohabitted with that rapist for so long.
|
|
The one just above my post.
Starting to compare a drunk driver hitting a pedestrian to being too drunk to consent is a pretty common line of argument I've seen before. Namely in attempts to claim that people are at fault if they get drunk and then get assaulted.
If I've misinterpreted, then I apologise. I'd like to be reading too much into it.
The absolute extreme case is very clear. What isn't clear is WHERE EXACTLY the boundary is between consent and inability to consent.
Indeed, I think that's why a lot of people are saying "If you're not sure, better safe than sorry".
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Why do you care so much about the legalities? Surely the moral issue is, why risk hurting someone just to get your end away? Why wouldn't you want a partner to enthusiastically agree and enjoy what is going on?
Seriously, some of you guys are coming off as really creepy and making me really glad I don't drink.
Marthkus, you are coming veeery close to saying a drunk person is at fault for being sexually assaulted, and that makes me incredibly sad.
Not at all. I agree where you made the distinction between not rape and sexual assault.
You are responsible for action you perform. If you're so drunk that someone just has their way you, then you didn't perform any actions. That is rape. If you are so drunk that the guy you wouldn't have sex with in a million years seems kind'of hot now so you two have sex. That is not rape.
Alcohol lowers inhibitions. It doesn't make you do things you don't want to do. If you are capable of giving clear verbal consent and physically participating in sex then you are capable of giving consent and should not make-up rape charges the next day because now that you are sober it seemed like a bad idea.
Which was where I drew the line. Here how about this. If she couldn't get into a car and attempt to drive than she is too drunk for sex. Because legally she is still accountable for any action that she can perform. Like is she murdered the guy making a pass at her, she would still go to prison for murder regardless of how drunk she was.Bully for the law. But unless you are seriously trying to argue that so long as a woman is sober enough to be not be unconscious it can't be rape, that's a load of crap.
Here, how about this - if she can't walk unaided and talk unslurred, she's probably too drunk for sex?
I wouldn't go so far as "Too drunk to drive". The legal limit for driving is very low and hard to actually detect without a breathalyzer test. It would essentially be "Has she drunk at all recently."
Unless you meant too drunk to be capable of getting in the car any trying to drive, in which case, carry on.
"Unless you meant too drunk to be capable of getting in the car any trying to drive, in which case, carry on." Yes this one.
Why do you care so much about the legalities? Surely the moral issue is, why risk hurting someone just to get your end away? Why wouldn't you want a partner to enthusiastically agree and enjoy what is going on?
Seriously, some of you guys are coming off as really creepy and making me really glad I don't drink.
Morally you shouldn't have sex with people who aren't your SO. So when we talk about wild drunk party sex, morality kind of goes out of the window. The only morality is the ability to either take legal advantage of someone or the legal ability to charge someone else with rape to negate your own bad decisions.
I think what he meant to say is: When the drunk person agrees to have sex (not just isn't able to stop the sex from happening), he/she is responsible for having sex and was neither assaulted nor raped - to which I would more or less agree.
Don't delete your comment. It articulates my stance well!
It's not immoral to sleep with people. If one night stands are you thing, then fine - I'm not one for slut shaming, for men or women. So long as you're clear on what things are, and there are no misconceptions, I see no problem.
The issue is entirely whether someone else is too drunk to consent - and for the hundredth time today 'if there is any doubt, don't.' Come on now guys, say it with me - 'if there is any doubt, don't.'
|
|
Not at all. I agree where you made the distinction between not rape and sexual assault.
You are responsible for action you perform. If you're so drunk that someone just has their way you, then you didn't perform any actions. That is rape. If you are so drunk that the guy you wouldn't have sex with in a million years seems kind'of hot now so you two have sex. That is not rape.
Alcohol lowers inhibitions. It doesn't make you do things you don't want to do. If you are capable of giving clear verbal consent and physically participating in sex then you are capable of giving consent and should not make-up rape charges the next day because now that you are sober it seemed like a bad idea.
I'm still seeing that you're arguing that someone who is tipsy can consent, which is correct! That doesn't sound like someone who is black-out drunk. It also sounds like the drunk person is initiating, which is rather different to the situation we've largely been talking about, i.e. a not-so-drunk person trying to hook up with a quite drunk person.
I also suspect the number of cases where "beer goggle regret" are far lower than the situations where a person feels threatened or pressured into doing something they don't want to do, but eh...
Morally you shouldn't have sex with people who aren't your SO. So when we talk about wild drunk party sex, morality kind of goes out of the window. The only morality is the ability to either take legal advantage of someone or the legal ability to charge someone else with rape to negate your own bad decisions.Why do you care so much about the legalities? Surely the moral issue is, why risk hurting someone just to get your end away? Why wouldn't you want a partner to enthusiastically agree and enjoy what is going on?
Seriously, some of you guys are coming off as really creepy and making me really glad I don't drink.
...
You know what, I'm just going to let these other guys take over. Alice is here & she articulates herself well. This thread is the first time I have read anything by seetobe, but she seems to be doing a good job of making her point clear.I'll still be reading, just not posting, to quote way too many old guys in action movies "I'm getting too old for this s~$+."
It's not immoral to sleep with people. If one night stands are you thing, then fine - I'm not one for slut shaming, for men or women. So long as you're clear on what things are, and there are no misconceptions, I see no problem.
The issue is entirely whether someone else is too drunk to consent - and for the hundredth time today 'if there is any doubt, don't.' Come on now guys, say it with me - 'if there is any doubt, don't.'
That's how men have to function in society because a woman can just claim rape whenever she feels like it. The man involve then has to go through a lengthy trail and is normally found guilty. Unless the man actually raped the woman. Then he usually knows the system well enough to get off scott free. Which these men love all the women who lie in court about rape. It really helps them get off innocent.
Just because "if there is any doubt, don't." is sound advice, it doesn't mean its right for women to have zero responsibility for their own actions.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
The thing is, equating people having sex after a few drinks with rape does nothing more than trivialize rape and give actual rapists justification. Insisting on actual verbal assent prior to any physical touching ignores how real human interaction works and trivializes actual forced touching. Insisting it's the man's job to evaluate whether a woman really wants sex or if it's just because she's had a couple of drinks trivializes her control over her own body and is paternalistic and sexist.
If Ms. Neo-socialist decides to go home with a sexy leftist goblin after 1st meeting him and have a fun safe night of meaningless sex, that doesn't make her a bad person, a slut, or anything else. It's not your job to protect her and tell her that because she had a drink or two first she was raped.
If, however she was so drunk she lacked the ability to understand what was happening and couldn't consent, that would be rape and the goblin's off to Siberian prison.
Edited for lack of class on my part.
Not at all. I agree where you made the distinction between not rape and sexual assault.
You are responsible for action you perform. If you're so drunk that someone just has their way you, then you didn't perform any actions. That is rape. If you are so drunk that the guy you wouldn't have sex with in a million years seems kind'of hot now so you two have sex. That is not rape.
Alcohol lowers inhibitions. It doesn't make you do things you don't want to do. If you are capable of giving clear verbal consent and physically participating in sex then you are capable of giving consent and should not make-up rape charges the next day because now that you are sober it seemed like a bad idea.
I'm still seeing that you're arguing that someone who is tipsy can consent, which is correct! That doesn't sound like someone who is black-out drunk. It also sounds like the drunk person is initiating, which is rather different to the situation we've largely been talking about, i.e. a not-so-drunk person trying to hook up with a quite drunk person.
I also suspect the number of cases where "beer goggle regret" are far lower than the situations where a person feels threatened or pressured into doing something they don't want to do, but eh...
It depends. You can still be physically able and articulate while black-out drunk. A buddy mines first time happened while he was like this. Did he get raped? No not at all. He wanted to have sex. He just regrets not being able to remember it. The girl was not black-out drunk because she did remember having sex. Does that make her a rapist?
|
I think what he meant to say is: When the drunk person agrees to have sex (not just isn't able to stop the sex from happening), he/she is responsible for having sex and was neither assaulted nor raped - to which I would more or less agree.Don't delete your comment. It articulates my stance well!
Thank you, but since your post was almost half a page away when I finised it didn't seem to make too much sense ;-)
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Holy victim-blaming hell fire, negate my bad decisions?
Most women who are raped, are raped by their significant others. Stranger rape, even when drunk, is very rare. Those rapes have nothing to do with drugs or alcohol or horniness, everything to do men wanting to dominate another person and a society that backs them up.
I don't get drunk, I don't even drink, I've seen enough drunk people and don't get the pleasure and it isn't worth the risk with creeps like you around. Your morality function is scewed. If a woman wants to go to a wild drunk party, you don't ever have the right to her regardless if you view her actions are immoral. No matter what your opinion on her morality, you do not have the right to harm her and if you do, she has every right to make you pay for your bad, horrible choice.
The rape conviction rate is 4%, FOUR, and there are less false allegation for rape than any other felony. Look it up real stats - like how one in 20 university age kids will admit to forcing themselves on someone who didn't want it but don't think that constitutes rape.
Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about and just trying to excuse your own creepiness. Thank you for making it so blatant so others can avoid.
|
|
Oh god, please don't imply I'd go for one of those goblins. Hook me up with a cute half-elf or something, eh?
*runs away from the anti-goblinism PC police* Down with goblin-affirmative action!
Slightly more seriously, I agree with the intent of your post, MeanDM, although I would honestly prefer if you replaced my name with, ah, some other unspecified individual. I don't feel too comfortable being used as an example for one-night stands or rape.
The thing is, equating people having sex after a few drinks with rape does nothing more than trivialize rape and give actual rapists justification. Insisting on actual verbal assent prior to any physical touching ignores how real human interaction works and trivializes actual forced touching. Insisting it's the man's job to evaluate whether a woman really wants sex or if it's just because she's had a couple of drinks trivializes her control over her own body and is paternalistic and sexist.
If Ms. Mergatroid decides to go home with a sexy leftist goblin after 1st meeting him and have a fun safe night of meaningless sex, that doesn't make her a bad person, a slut, or anything else. It's not your job to protect her and tell her that because she had a drink or two first she was raped.
If, however she was so drunk she lacked the ability to understand what was happening and couldn't consent, that would be rape and the goblin's off to Siberian prison.
Oh and how does the goblin know she was too drunk to understand the situation?
This is why I draw the line at physically evident signs of intoxication. If the the woman had to be carried off to the goblin lair to have sex then she was too drunk for consent because she was physically incapable of participating (#8 of the rape definition).
From someone who has seen a large number of convictions and guilty pleas to rape, it's not that hard to get a conviction. The number of women willing to lie about rape over regret is also incredibly small.
Oh god, please don't imply I'd go for one of those goblins. Hook me up with a cute half-elf or something, eh?
*runs away from the anti-goblinism PC police* Down with goblin-affirmative action!
Slightly more seriously, I agree with the intent of your post, MeanDM, although I would honestly prefer if you replaced my name with, ah, some other unspecified individual. I don't feel too comfortable being used as an example for one-night stands or rape.
Almost immediately after hitting submit I began to have second thoughts about that even in tongue in cheek. Please accept my sincerest apologies. I'll edit.
The thing is, equating people having sex after a few drinks with rape does nothing more than trivialize rape and give actual rapists justification. Insisting on actual verbal assent prior to any physical touching ignores how real human interaction works and trivializes actual forced touching. Insisting it's the man's job to evaluate whether a woman really wants sex or if it's just because she's had a couple of drinks trivializes her control over her own body and is paternalistic and sexist.
If Ms. Mergatroid decides to go home with a sexy leftist goblin after 1st meeting him and have a fun safe night of meaningless sex, that doesn't make her a bad person, a slut, or anything else. It's not your job to protect her and tell her that because she had a drink or two first she was raped.
If, however she was so drunk she lacked the ability to understand what was happening and couldn't consent, that would be rape and the goblin's off to Siberian prison.
Oh and how does the goblin know she was too drunk to understand the situation?
This is why I draw the line at physically evident signs of intoxication. If the the woman had to be carried off to the goblin lair to have sex then she was too drunk for consent because she was physically incapable of participating (#8 of the rape definition).
*shrug* It's when she's drunk enough she can't consent because she doesn't know what she's doing. Not just not thinking it through, but doesn't really have the ability to say no. That said, your plan isn't a bad one. Particularly with someone you don't know.
Holy victim-blaming hell fire, negate my bad decisions?
Most women who are raped, are raped by their significant others. Stranger rape, even when drunk, is very rare. Those rapes have nothing to do with drugs or alcohol or horniness, everything to do men wanting to dominate another person and a society that backs them up.
I don't get drunk, I don't even drink, I've seen enough drunk people and don't get the pleasure and it isn't worth the risk with creeps like you around. Your morality function is scewed. If a woman wants to go to a wild drunk party, you don't ever have the right to her regardless if you view her actions are immoral. No matter what your opinion on her morality, you do not have the right to harm her and if you do, she has every right to make you pay for your bad, horrible choice.
The rape conviction rate is 4%, FOUR, and there are less false allegation for rape than any other felony. Look it up real stats - like how one in 20 university age kids will admit to forcing themselves on someone who didn't want it but don't think that constitutes rape.
Seriously, you have no idea what you are talking about and just trying to excuse your own creepiness. Thank you for making it so blatant so others can avoid.
How do you know rape allegations are false or true? Your stats are BS.
Me saying that extra marital sex at drinking party is not moral for both the man and the woman involved is somehow bad?
Considering how dangerous those kinds of situations are for both the man and the woman. I think its safe to say that those situations are not moral for any party involved. As a guy if you have sex with a random woman she can charge you with rape and ruin your life. As girl random guys can swoop you away into a private room, drug you into being unconscious, rape you and get away with it because you have no proof it was rape and he has a lawyer.
Personally I feel that legality and morality should be completely devoid of each other. The law attempts to maintain social order while morality focuses on what is "the good". The law would like to prevent rape and false rape charges.
Oh wait. I think I get what you are saying now. You were talking about women who go to parties with no intention of having sex and are arguing that such behavior is morally acceptable. At which point I would agree with you. But funny thing about morals (like not wanting to have sex for moral reasons) those kind of morals degrade after so many beers. At which point some people can flip their stance on whether or not they want sex. At which point we're back into immoral extra marital sex.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
I'm out. Too many of you are coming off as defending rape, that it's OK so long as...no, it just isn't, and frankly I'll lost any and all respect for more than one person in this thread.
The conviction rate for rape is 4%. A woman gets dragged through the courts, has a lawyer try and blame her foe what happens, and most likely won't get a conviction. That's depressing as all hell to me - the fact we're not moving onto fake rape cries is just...
I honestly cannot fathom how so many of you are arguing with the point 'if you aren't sure she's in a state for sex, don't.' I can't understand how you think having sex is so much more important.
Frankly, several of you have come across as despicable human beings in this thread, that makinbg sure you have sex is just too damned important to let little details like doubt get in the way, and I am physically ill that we're now going to rape victim blaming and false rape allegations.
Because rape victims haven't gone through all the fun until they've been told not only is it there fault, but they're probably lying about it.
Seriously, some of you people need to desperately reconsider which is more important to you - sex or the person you're sleeping with. And now, I'm out.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Almost immediately after hitting submit I began to have second thoughts about that even in tongue in cheek. Please accept my sincerest apologies. I'll edit.Thanks, I appreciate it. No harm done, it's just a little uncomfortable.
Yeah. I don't know you. Triggers. Etc. VERY bad form on my part. :-(
*shrug* It's when she's drunk enough she can't consent because she doesn't know what she's doing. Not just not thinking it through, but doesn't really have the ability to say no. That said, your plan isn't a bad one. Particularly with someone you don't know.
Oh and how does the goblin know she was too drunk to understand the situation?This is why I draw the line at physically evident signs of intoxication. If the the woman had to be carried off to the goblin lair to have sex then she was too drunk for consent because she was physically incapable of participating (#8 of the rape definition).
Oh God, that's not my plan at all. I know for a fact a woman can accuse rape regardless. I only plan to have sex with people I trust not to throw around false rape charges at me.
From someone who has seen a large number of convictions and guilty pleas to rape, it's not that hard to get a conviction. The number of women willing to lie about rape over regret is also incredibly small.I'm sure those that have been accused of lying about rape is far higher though.
Many, if not most, criminals say the victims are lying in every type of criminal case. Most of them then plead guilty and admit fault. Criminals aren't much on taking personal responsibility.
*shrug* It's when she's drunk enough she can't consent because she doesn't know what she's doing. Not just not thinking it through, but doesn't really have the ability to say no. That said, your plan isn't a bad one. Particularly with someone you don't know.
Oh and how does the goblin know she was too drunk to understand the situation?This is why I draw the line at physically evident signs of intoxication. If the the woman had to be carried off to the goblin lair to have sex then she was too drunk for consent because she was physically incapable of participating (#8 of the rape definition).
Oh God, that's not my plan at all. I know for a fact a woman can accuse rape regardless. I only plan to have sex with people I trust not to throw around false rape charges at me.
I meant your plan of avoiding physical intimacy with any woman with visible signs of intoxication. Probably morally sound as well.
I'm out. Too many of you are coming off as defending rape, that it's OK so long as...no, it just isn't, and frankly I'll lost any and all respect for more than one person in this thread.
The conviction rate for rape is 4%. A woman gets dragged through the courts, has a lawyer try and blame her foe what happens, and most likely won't get a conviction. That's depressing as all hell to me - the fact we're not moving onto fake rape cries is just...
I honestly cannot fathom how so many of you are arguing with the point 'if you aren't sure she's in a state for sex, don't.' I can't understand how you think having sex is so much more important.
Frankly, several of you have come across as despicable human beings in this thread, that makinbg sure you have sex is just too damned important to let little details like doubt get in the way, and I am physically ill that we're now going to rape victim blaming and false rape allegations.
Because rape victims haven't gone through all the fun until they've been told not only is it there fault, but they're probably lying about it.
Seriously, some of you people need to desperately reconsider which is more important to you - sex or the person you're sleeping with. And now, I'm out.
I would agree with you, but you call things rape that I do not. Because of people like you, if I was ever on a jury and the woman in question had no medical of evidence of being raped (which going to a hospital within a day or two of the event and getting a rape kit done is all it takes. Which who doesn't go to the hospital after being assaulted?), I would be hard press to vote guilty. But then again I hate our legal system and feel like testimony shouldn't be considered as evidence.
Many, if not most, criminals say the victims are lying in every type of criminal case. Most of them then plead guilty and admit fault. Criminals aren't much on taking personal responsibility.From someone who has seen a large number of convictions and guilty pleas to rape, it's not that hard to get a conviction. The number of women willing to lie about rape over regret is also incredibly small.I'm sure those that have been accused of lying about rape is far higher though.
My father works parole. Plenty of innocent people plea guilty because they are poor, can't afford a good lawyer, and would rather do 3 years instead of 20. Guilty pleas are bargains for a lesser sentence. Many people aren't willing to risk 20 or more years of their life on the off-chance that they could win a court case.
Let me let you in on a secret. In everything but the extreme cases of quality or incompetence, facts drive these cases, not the quality of the lawyer. This from a criminal defense lawyer. There are innocent people on probation/parole or in prison. They are the vast minority.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
(which going to a hospital within a day or two of the event and getting a rape kit done is all it takes. Which who doesn't go to the hospital after being assaulted?)
Here are some possible reasons...
1) You may be too emotionally traumatised to do that.
2) You may not be aware that you can go to the police/hospital for such a thing.
3) You may not believe that it's worth the trauma and effort of taking the issue to the police, c.f. low rates of rape convictions.
4) You may be a minority (sexual, racial, etc.) and feel that your account of things will not be taken seriously or treated appropriately.
5) You might be scared of the potential repercussions of taking the issue to the police (e.g., threats from the person, social problems).
6) You might be ashamed of yourself and not want to face that it happened to you.
7) You might have had previous bad experiences with the police (especially related to rape) that make you not trust them.
8) You might not have a clear memory of the event until much later if heavy alcohol or drugs are involved.
9) Especially for Americans, you may not be able to afford the health care.
*shrug*