OP/ED: Drudge Rape Poll: Disgusting

Savonarola- You've now compared men (rapists) to bears, vicious dogs and wild animals. And called victims of rape stupid, ignorant and neglegent.

I'll tell you one thing, I'd leave my 15 year old daughter with 50 Hell's Angels before I'd leave her with one person who excuses rapists as 'wild animals' and lays the accountability of rape with a woman for 'putting herself in a dangerous situation'.

You got one thing right. Some men are no better than willd animals.

Savonarola,
So your saying that there are some places that women should not go?
How about some clothes they should not wear?
How about make up? Are they asking for it when they wear it?
NO MEANS NO, and women have as much of a right as anyone to go any where they choose too.
Come on thats 19th century thinking.
Like it or not, women are as much of a minority in todays society as blacks or latinos. Assumptions like that will continue to keep them there. We have an obligation, the highest obligation, as humans to FIRST respect other people. Especially their persons.

A lot of what I have read on here is indicative of the preconception that rape is about sex. IT IS NEVER ABOUT SEX. Rape is a crime of ANGER, DOMINANCE and control. Power, manipulation and yes HATE!!!
When you finally accept that, you will come to understand that it matters not what the woman is wearing, where she goes or what she does. (She can vote too)
Now some of what I used to teach revolves around places to avoid, and recognition symbols, but that is a mind/charactor building mechanism and in no way is construed as too it was "their fault."
Rape Shield Laws are in effect exactly because of thinking just like this. They are necessary for the proper prosecution of Rape as well. SO very many women do not prosecute BECAUSE of the possibility of the negative reactions from her family and friends. That negative reaction stems from attitudes like, Rape is about sex, She should dress better, and the classic, what was she doing in a place like that. We have to remove the possibility that the victim will be shunned and ridiculed as well as we can.
And finally, yes there are instances where men are the victims of sexual assault, but come on people we are discussing Rape and the VAST majority of victims are women.
As such, this discussion is about protecting the victim, and Shield Laws apply to men as well. The difference is that it is NOT/NEVER as destructive to a man as it is too a woman. Sorry about your egos, but I've worked this, done the research and its all out there. Heck just google it.
Again the emotional impact on a woman is completely devastating. Some instances, and they are not rare, the woman is rendered completely incapable of further interaction with the public. Agoriphobia is not uncommon.
Please people, be congnizant that there are a lot of women on here and some are victims. I ask that you respect their feelings and the trauma they have endured when posting.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I don't think that's true, dg.

A man doesn't have to be sexually aroused to have an erection, plus there are other types of sexual assault besides intercourse that would be considered rape.

I agree, BH, but I'd like to point out that, believe it or not, my 8th grade Health teacher told our class "Men cannot be raped." Period. In no uncertain terms. In fact, even when some of the more daring lads in class asked the inevitable, "what about in jail," she flat-out denied that it was rape. "Men cannot be raped. Ever. Period."

Shameful way to teach children, I'd say. Also, it is concerning because she was likely following a curriculum that others were teaching as well.

Pretty sad.

Actually guys in several states can't be raped... Just like they can't be sexually harrassed. A guy tried to sue for sexual harrassment and the judge threw it out because the law stated the SH laws only applied to women.

But again, I say the consent form idea is the best, all men carry them in their wallets, women in their purses, this would cut down on false rape accounts and allow the women trully raped an extra leg to stand on. Make sure you sign in pen, not pencil...

StarkMan, I think you mean that women can't be charged with rape in some states. The guy is still raped, regardless of what state he's in, it's just the laws of that state prevent women from being charged with rape. And that's terribly unfair.

Do you happen to have any current information on the states that don't charge women with rape? Do you have a link to the story about the judge throwing out the case? I would be interested in reading about that.

And I think the citizens of those states should write their reps and get that law changed.

And as regards the consent form, what if something goes awry and one or the other party changes their mind? What if the girl starts biting the guy or tells him she's only doing it to get back at his best friend? What if he wants to stop and says STOP but she doesn't?

I think consent forms are a good idea in a way, but they really couldn't be used if one party changes their mind mid-stream.

I would be particularly interested in what state ANY rape law that has been accepted as Common Law, enacted as Statutory or Approved by a Common Wealth, is gender specific?
I've never heard of this anywhere in the US, That does not mean it's not there, but I would be VERY interested to know what state. If you can provide that, I can obtain the relevent law and post it here.
\Thank you

I don't know which states they are, either, but Wikipedia says there are 12.

U.S. Law

In the United States, there is no national rape law; instead each state drafts its own laws to deal with sexual aggression. More than half the states use narrowly defined, traditional laws that focus on the institutional, gender-specific (male perpetrator/female victim), and sexual nature of the crime. The remaining minority of states use liberalized laws that place greater emphasis on the individual, gender-neutral, and violent nature of sexual coercion. However, even with all the advances that have taken place, current laws in approximately 12 states still have not acknowledged female-perpetrated sexual coercion as a potential variation of sexual aggression. Thus there is no single, universal, gender-neutral legal classification about what constitutes rape in the United States in 2006.

I know New Mexico isn't gender specific, but I can't find a list of states laws.

As far as I can find (and Im not done looking) the state they are talking about have laws that FAVOR the male perp/female vic. I don't beleve they specifically exclude the fem perp/male vic, but I will find out.

However, it is still my contention that that (Fem perp) is such a very small perventage, that we are wasting time on it instead of the real issue here. The protection of a victim.

Has the media not gone enough overboard anyway without giving them more and more ammunition? It is shameful what they do to the facts involving any case that draws thier attention.

All know is I have not walked a mile in the shoes of a rape victim and until I do, I will do all within my power to protect them and give them the justice they so deserve.

Here's something:

From the footnotes here:
www.spr.org...

11] The only states that continue to maintain a gender-specific definition of rape are Alabama, Georgia, Maryland, Mississippi, and North Carolina. Idaho defines male rape as a different crime, but still treats it as rape, at www.spr.org...

Looks like it's only 5 states. The link in the footnote gives each state's laws.

I still say that the identities of both the accuser and the accused should not be released until the resolution of the trial. I'm not saying what did or what didn't happen here and am not taking sides. The media has these men tried, convicted and standing in front of the firing squad. In my opinion this interferes with their right to a fair and impatrtial jury trial. Even if these men are tried and convicted there will still be a doubt in my mind on whether they were actually guilty or if there was bias on the part of the jury. If you want examples all you have to do is Google "Innocence Project"

Originally posted by Savonarola
I'm not saying rapists shouldn't be prosecuted - I'm not defending rapists. I'm saying that women like this stripper (if her story's true) should bear some accountability for putting themselves in unsafe situations with questionable people. "If you keep petting strange dogs eventually one will bite."

-S

Savonarola, I understand the point you are trying to make. It is a very difficult point to make without sounding like you're saying the woman deserved it.

Legally, a drunk, scantily clad woman is allowed to walk unescorted at 3AM wherever she wants. Legally, she is allowed to tease a man into a sexual heat as much as she wants and then turn off the jets and just say "no".

Legally, she can do all that and more. But we don't live in a make-believe world, and if she finds herself in a bad situation because of her poor judgement, then we have to question her common sense.

As I said, it is diificult to talk about the role of common sense, since the opposition never takes into account those factors. And legally, they are correct.

from police_officer339
The difference is that it is NOT/NEVER as destructive to a man as it is too a woman. Sorry about your egos, but I've worked this, done the research and its all out there. Heck just google it.

Really? And google told you so? There is absolutely no way of knowing if that is true. Maybe men don't externalize a rape like a woman does, but I'd bet they internalize it a damn sight more. It manifests itself in other anti-social behaviors because of the rage felt and the male aggressive nature. I'd say it is a lot more difficult for a man to admit to having been raped.

Originally posted by JIMC5499
I still say that the identities of both the accuser and the accused should not be released until the resolution of the trial.

I agree with you. Revealing the accused's name does no good at all. It would only be beneficial if he was guilty and there was a chance he'd rape again, which could be why they feel it's ok to reveal it in the first place.

Originally posted by jsobecky
if she finds herself in a bad situation because of her poor judgement, then we have to question her common sense.

No, we don't have to question her common sense, just some people do.

As I said, it is diificult to talk about the role of common sense, since the opposition never takes into account those factors. And legally, they are correct.

What 'opposition' are you talking about? Those who don't hold the woman accountable for what a rapist does?

Well, let me tell you something. You're wrong. I questioned my common sense for years and I still do. I have told myself how stupid I was to put myself in a position where I was victimized by this man. I beat myself up for many years because of how naive I was to trust this father of my friend. What kind of idiot thinks nothing 'bad' could happen in the daytime? I blamed myself for ruining his 7-year old son's life - who burst in on us in response to my screams. I feel so much guilt for that boy's emotional scars from seeing his own father raping someone. I wonder where he is today... Did he kill himself? What was his relationship with his father like? Should I have been quiet? Is it my fault the boy came in? Yes, it is. I called for him thinking it might make his father to stop hurting me, but it didn't do any good! He wouldn't stop!

I had the 'common sense' to trust that another human being wouldn't take from me what I was NOT willing to give.

The thing is, jsobecky and Savonarola, we don't need you to question our common sense, our naïveté, our stupidity, our actions or point out the bad judgments and decisions we feel we made. Because we will do that every single day of our lives. Regardless of whether we actually used bad judgment or not, we will punish ourselves with the very words you speak over and over again. We just don't freakin' need you to do it, too.

Every time you try to hold a woman accountable for being raped, you re-open and rub salt in an invisible would that she has carried with her all her life and will carry with her till she dies. The guilt of being raped regardless of the circumstances is something that's very difficult to shed. I haven't done it in 30 years, and I sit here, crying while I write this, reliving it all as if it happened yesterday. Telling myself all over again how stupid I was.

Absolutely jsobeckey
No arguement here

Originally posted by jsobecky
]
[bLegally, a drunk, scantily clad woman is allowed to walk unescorted at 3AM wherever she wants. Legally, she is allowed to tease a man into a sexual heat as much as she wants and then turn off the jets and just say "no".

As I said, it is diificult to talk about the role of common sense, since the opposition never takes into account those factors. And legally, they are correct.

Of course they are correct. To even consider otherwise shows your detachment from rape and what it is like to be raped.

"To be rapable, a position that is social, not biological, defines what a woman is."
-Catharine MacKinnon

This is reflected in prisons where rape occurs... men become someones "wife" or "bitch" - so women, whether they are real women, or women men are who are being raped... very rarely men.

Like Benevolent Heretic said, in a previous post, who is doing the raping?
When men are raped do we take into consideration the causative factors? Prison rape is a common example - no one says they are in prison, they're criminals, they deserve what they get. But of course, true to form, when it comes to women being raped (and they most certainly constitute the majority of rapes) it is OK for such things as prior sexual behavior, habits, etc., to be shoved in her face as if it matters.
When a woman says NO, it means NO. It does NOT matter whether she was walking down a dark alley at 3 am wearing skimpy clothing. It does NOT matter if she is a prosititute or a stripper.

And Savonarola, you said:

Women have to be held accountable for putting themselves in bad situations...
I sympathize less with "victim chicks" (VCs) that consistently put themselves in dangerous situations (like strippers, prostitutes, alcoholics, drug abusers, and generally promiscuous women) and then act surprised when "some" man/men rape them

Has it ever crossed your mind why these women are even in these positons? And that MOST times it's not due to choice! There are structures of power and inequality at work in our societies that in a sense force women into these places. Regardless of that, instead of trying to place blame on these women, why don't we look at the rapability of women in general? Refer to what I was talking about above - it is women being raped, whether they be real women, or a male woman (in the case of prison rape). Hell, look at transvestite prostitutes... who are at an even more increased risk because they are transvestites.

Why are women so often raped? Why is female prostitution such big business? Maybe we should look at these questions before we go trying to place blame at the feet of women who have been raped and saying "you should have known better."

You list off strippers, prostitutes, alcoholics, drug abusers, and generally promiscuous women as "Victim Chicks." Let's look at this from a different angle... there are male strippers... male prostitutes, male alchoholics, male drug abusers, and promiscuous men. Tell me, why are they not at increased risk of being raped?

Heretic, you said

"I'll tell you one thing, I'd leave my 15 year old daughter with 50 Hell's Angels before I'd leave her with one person who excuses rapists as 'wild animals' and lays the accountability of rape with a woman for 'putting herself in a dangerous situation'."

Firstly, I said "victim chicks" need to take some accountability. You were raped as a child - that's different, and I'm very sorry it happened (happened to me too, and I was a boy).

Geek girl said

"Has it ever crossed your mind why these women are even in these positons?" Sure. I know a few girls that put themselves through Uni by stripping and "escorting" - most do end up having drug habits and getting raped. Again, I'm not dissing girls and women that are forced into prostitution, just the ones that put themselves in retarded situations.

jsobecky said

"As I said, it is diificult to talk about the role of common sense, since the opposition never takes into account those factors. And legally, they are correct."

That's what I'm talking about - rights, freedoms, and all the wonderful ideals we have about freedom, etc can't be realized in the real world without common sense. There are predators out there, every boy and girl has it drilled into his/her head from the age of 4 to avoid certain people and places. Stupidity and ignorance is no excuse.

police_officer339 said

"We have an obligation, the highest obligation, as humans to FIRST respect other people."

Again, an ideal that you as a police officer ought to know cannot be realized by all people. This is the real world, not Malcolm in the Middle. Not everyone can be Luke Skywalker (who'd wanna be that pansy, anyway?)

-S

[edit on 27-4-2006 by Savonarola]

Originally posted by Savonarola
You were raped as a child -

I don't know where you get that. I was not a child. I was a divorced young woman. Just FYI.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic

Originally posted by jsobecky
if she finds herself in a bad situation because of her poor judgement, then we have to question her common sense.

No, we don't have to question her common sense, just some people do.

As I said, it is diificult to talk about the role of common sense, since the opposition never takes into account those factors. And legally, they are correct.

What 'opposition' are you talking about? Those who don't hold the woman accountable for what a rapist does?

No, I'm talking about those who think we live in a fairy tale world. But you knew that, BH.

Well, let me tell you something. You're wrong. I questioned my common sense for years and I still do. I have told myself how stupid I was to put myself in a position where I was victimized by this man.

Not the same situation at all, BH. Not what I was talking about at all.

Unless you knew that this guy was a rapist and you still laid down in his bed, wearing a negligee, because you expected nothing to happen. Then, we would most certainly have to question your judgement.

So stop twisting my words. You're attempting to paint me as someone who blames the victim.

Do you have kids? As remember in another post, you said no you didn't. But would you counsel them to not have unprotected sex with another person? Yes you would, because you know it could cost them their health and their life. If your daughter came home at 4AM, drunk and half-clothed, and said she had been out, alone, doing the bars, what would you tell her?

Oh, I know - you'd raise perfect children would would be wise beyond their years because you would be such a great parent. Your kids would never get in trouble, right?

The thing that tee's me off the most about your post is that you twist people's words without remorse, just to make your point. And you are the type of "opposition" I was referring to. Your response is exactly what I warned Savaranola to expect. Teaching a kid that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure is doing right by that kid. Telling them that they can do xyz because this is America is setting them up to be hurt.

I didn't twist anybody's words. I quoted your exact words and responded to what I thought you meant. I'm not painting you as anything. The paint brush is in your hand, sir. If you come out looking like you blame the rape victim, that's certainly not my doing.

If you have been misunderstood, then explain yourself, but you can hardly blame it on me. Well, you can blame me, I suppose. You have, apparently. Interesting that you're now blaming me for how you appear here. :shk:

I talked about my experience. I twisted no words.

I don't understand what you think we're opposed on, exactly, although it's not necessary for me to understand. But trust me, I know we don't live in a fairy tale world. I know that all too well. And I certainly don't understand what my hypothetical parenting skills has to do with this discussion at all, but again, that's all right with me.

Originally posted by Benevolent Heretic
I didn't twist anybody's words. I quoted your exact words and responded to what I thought you meant. I'm not painting you as anything. The paint brush is in your hand, sir.

Right here, BH:

Every time you try to hold a woman accountable for being raped, you re-open and rub salt in an invisible would that she has carried with her all her life and will carry with her till she dies.

Nowhere did I "try to hold a woman accountable for being raped". That's where you're being dishonest. And I don't like it.

If you come out looking like you blame the rape victim, that's certainly not my doing.

No, it's your incorrect interpretation.

from geek grrl
When a woman says NO, it means NO. It does NOT matter whether she was walking down a dark alley at 3 am wearing skimpy clothing. It does NOT matter if she is a prosititute or a stripper.

You're missing the point. Nobody is saying that NO means YES. What we are saying is "walking down a dark alley at 3 am wearing skimpy clothing" is not the smartest thing to do.

Originally posted by jsobecky
You're missing the point. Nobody is saying that NO means YES. What we are saying is "walking down a dark alley at 3 am wearing skimpy clothing" is not the smartest thing to do.

No Becky, you're missing MY point.

In even creating an issue about what a woman is wearing, where she is, and the time it is you are meaning to lay blame.

How often does the victim of a shooting get told, well, why were you in that neighbourhood? You knew there was danger... common sense! Hello!?!

No, it doesn't happen. But when a woman is raped, oh, well we better look at what SHE was doing at the time it happened... let's not focus on WHY SO MANY WOMEN ARE RAPED, regardless of when and where it happens.