# Rape statistics



## MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut

People still say to women that to avoid sexual assault or rape "don't go to dark alleys at night" or "don't dress provocatively" or something similar. In the light of the statistics these seem like empty words.

(Source: Statistics | RAINN | Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network)


1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime.

9 of every 10 rape victims were female in 2003

Lifetime rate of rape /attempted rape for women by race:

All women: 17.6%
 White women: 17.7%
 Black women: 18.8%
 Asian Pacific Islander women: 6.8%
 American Indian/Alaskan women: 34.1%
 Mixed race women: 24.4%

44% of sexual assault and rape victims are under age 18.

93% of juvenile sexual assault victims know their attacker:

34.2% of attackers were family members.
 58.7% were acquaintances.
 Only 7% of the perpetrators were strangers to the victim.

American Indians were twice as likely to experience a rape/sexual assault compared to all races.

Every 2 minutes, another American is sexually assaulted.

Out of every 100 rapes:

40 get reported to police
 10 lead to an arrest
 8 get prosecuted
 4 lead to a felony conviction
 3 rapists will spend even a single day in prison
The other 97 will walk free.

The Rapist isn't a Masked Stranger: 

Approximately 2/3 of rapes were committed by someone known to the victim.
 73% of sexual assaults were perpetrated by a non-stranger.
 38% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance.
 28% are an intimate.
 7% are a relative.

More than 50% of all rape/sexual assault incidents were reported by victims to have occured within 1 mile of their home or at their home.

4 in 10 take place at the victim's home.
 2 in 10 take place at the home of a friend, neighbor, or relative.
 1 in 12 take place in a parking garage.

 43% of rapes occur between 6:00pm and midnight.
 24% occur between midnight and 6:00am.
 The other 33% take place between 6:00am and 6:00pm.

The Criminal

The average age of a rapist is 31 years old.
 52% are white.
 22% of imprisoned rapists report that they are married.
What is especially disturbing is the twice as high percentage of American Indian/Alaskan women as victims, considering 52% of offenders are white and 22% are married.


----------



## RandomDude

Stats are similar in AUS:



> In 2012 an estimated *17%* (1,494,000) of all women aged 18 years and over had experienced sexual assault since the age of 15.
> In 2012 an estimated 4% (336,000) of all men aged 18 years and over had experienced sexual assault since the age of 15.


Also this:









I find my daughter requiring high supervision due to her rather free-loving social nature as well. I had always hoped I could raise her to become:










So I won't have to be concerned all the time, but she has no interest in violence/lacks killer instinct unlike her daddy  Too much of her mum's influence! Bah!


----------



## BoozeLevers

MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut said:


> People still say to women that to avoid sexual assault or rape "don't go to dark alleys at night" or "don't dress provocatively" or something similar. In the light of the statistics these seem like empty words.


I would tell both men and women to avoid walking down dark alleys at night. Taking precautionary steps to lessen the risk of being targeted seems prudent regardless of one's sex.



> 1 out of every 6 American women has been the victim of an attempted or completed rape in her lifetime.


Statistics like this are almost certainly overstated.
CDC study on sexual violence in the U.S. overstates the problem - The Washington Post


----------



## the2ofus

I think we should avoid dark alleys cause yes it can be dangerous and there are more things than just rape to be concerned about. The harm is in believing you are safe if you just don't walk down a dark alley. I know that people you know are the number one molester of kids which is why I don't just tell my kids don't talk to strangers but educate them on what to do if ANYONE touches them inappropriately. As for attacks my son was choked by a "friend" during the middle of the day in another friends house, far from a dark alley. Kids need to know how to defend themselves not just avoid situations.


----------



## MSP

Hard to take a post seriously when the poster has a deliberately inflammatory username. Would an equivalent 'FeministsAreB!tches' go over just fine?


----------



## the2ofus

Didn't notice the username, do not get the username. I think I'm missing something.


----------



## Racer

Ugh. A subject for me filled with triggers. My Serial Adulterer Wife would have been one of those “unreported, knew the perpetrator” ones. Also understand though that she needed to be a victim. So, she’d go out, do shots, get plowed, flirt with a “friend of a friend” that hung out in the same group, enjoy that company, take him up on the offer to go back to his place so they could continue the conversation and she could sober up enough to drive home. And he would make a move… duh. 

In her mind, if she didn’t comply, she’d be facing a violent rape. So she’d let him without much resistance, “But I’m married (thinking that would stop the advances)”; Never a strong ‘no’ or trying to get out of there. After, she’d say “I didn’t want that to happen (to alleviate her guilt); Not her fault.” Helped her maintain that idea that she was a good wife since she was a victim and would have been faithful if it weren’t for that guy raping her. From the guy’s perspective, she wanted to have sex with him. I don’t blame the guy on this stuff or think it was a rape. It was a ONS with a married woman and consensual. My wife could have stopped that from being the situation at multiple points... ooh, and of coarse she didn't tell me because she knew I'd blame her for what happened; Duh...

Another in her story… Same situation but with the best friend of her boyfriend. His place, talking about her boyfriend and their issues, she’s drunk again and alone with a man. She didn’t resist, but cried through it. Didn’t stop him. That I do see as rapey… 

And all this is related to her original rape. Roommate’s brother, took him up on a ride to a party… he took her to the woods instead and violently raped her after she said no and fought. Ever since, she sort of intentionally puts herself in that same situation like it’s some sort of ‘test’ to see if she’s strong enough to not trigger and is past it. She isn’t and she panics and goes passive out of fear of the violence that might happen if she says no. That’s a big part of her ‘why’. She’s afraid to say ‘no’ because of her experience with rape.


----------



## Anonymous07

Racer said:


> Ugh. A subject for me filled with triggers. My Serial Adulterer Wife would have been one of those “unreported, knew the perpetrator” ones. Also understand though that she needed to be a victim. So, she’d go out, do shots, get plowed, flirt with a “friend of a friend” that hung out in the same group, enjoy that company, take him up on the offer to go back to his place so they could continue the conversation and she could sober up enough to drive home. And he would make a move… duh.


While her actions of getting wasted and going to a guy's house(that she doesn't really know) isn't a great idea, it still doesn't mean she deserves to be raped. It doesn't matter if the woman is dressing provocatively and is drunk, if she says "no", then it means NO. I hate when people blame the woman for getting raped/sex forced upon them. It is never the victims fault. 

I have never understood why all anti-rape campaigns(that I've seen) always talk to women about how to avoid being raped(use the buddy system, never leave your drink, don't walk down dark ally ways, etc.) and are not geared toward men. What about a campaign focused on men, saying if a woman says "no", then she means it. Don't have sex with her. I think it's sad that we continue to blame the victim, the woman, for getting raped(well she was dressing "****ty", so she wanted it). Ugh. 

(warning: this may be a trigger for some) 

My ex boyfriend tried to rape me and I was basically only saved from it happening because his brother came home. I also have a cousin who was raped. She was bar hoping with friends and 2 guys who were friends of friends, drove her "home". There is surveillance video of them walking my wasted cousin across the street, but she didn't end up at home. They raped her and left her on her friend's front lawn. Her friend's mom found her at 6 am when she heard a truck take off quickly down the street. She did report the crime, but as is typical, nothing happened. It's really why so many never report rape because typically it's all "he said vs she said". The dr. couldn't find enough dna to show who did it and the video from the signal only shows them walking her to the car(can't prove anything). It's all really sad.


----------



## Racer

Anonymous07 said:


> What about a campaign focused on men, saying if a woman says "no", then she means it..


They do. "No means No" campaign stuff. The problem though. Describe how you decide when to say 'yes' and how many "no's" you issued before you said 'yes'... Ever tell a guy like your husband 'no'. And I bet you still have sex with him and he still tries to get in your pants; maybe not that night, but he'll continue to try the next day, and the next and the next. See the problem? 

Guys aren't quite so evasive about when we want to have sex with you; We make efforts and take actions to let you know it's ok. Most won't make you jump through arbitrary hoops or play coy about it. So more often than not, a "no" simply means 'not yet' or 'not tonight'... it does not mean stop trying.

If you want it to stop. You have to have the emotional force and emphasis (like a yell) behind it for it to have any value.

The f'd up part about my wife. She fears she might enrage. So she has to feel safe and comfortable with you to yell. So I'm the only man she would scream "NO!" at. With other men, it's more of a gentle let down... and they keep trying... and she still says it softly while letting them escalate... until her pants are off and she's stopped saying no.


----------



## BoozeLevers

Anonymous07 said:


> While her actions of getting wasted and going to a guy's house(that she doesn't really know) isn't a great idea, it still doesn't mean she deserves to be raped. It doesn't matter if the woman is dressing provocatively and is drunk, if she says "no", then it means NO. I hate when people blame the woman for getting raped/sex forced upon them. It is never the victims fault.


I think this perfectly illustrates the disconnect. While everyone can agree that one person violently forcing another to have sex is a serious crime, many people want to lump myriad other behaviors into the same category so that a man who meets a provocatively dressed woman in a bar, drinks with her, flirts with her, goes home with her, and encounters some tepid "but I'm married" resistance rather than firm and clear refusal, is now considered a rapist. And that's a shame.



> I have never understood why all anti-rape campaigns(that I've seen) always talk to women about how to avoid being raped(use the buddy system, never leave your drink, don't walk down dark ally ways, etc.) and are not geared toward men. What about a campaign focused on men, saying if a woman says "no", then she means it. Don't have sex with her. I think it's sad that we continue to blame the victim, the woman, for getting raped(well she was dressing "****ty", so she wanted it). Ugh.


No matter the crime, crime prevention focuses on both perpetrators and victims. Focusing on one doesn't mean you support the other. If you ask a policeman to talk to your homeowners association about preventing burglary, he will tell you to lock your doors, keep your bushes cut low, install lights around your house, and to make your house an unattractive target. And that's appropriate. It would irresponsible for a policeman to encourage homeowners to leave their doors open and unlocked, keep the exterior spaces dark, and put up signs saying there is no alarm system and the homeowner doesn't own any weapons. A house like that is much more likely to be targeted by burglars. Yes, the ultimate blame is on the criminal. But that's cold comfort to a victim who could have taken some reasonable precautions to minimize the risk of becoming a victim.

Besides, I think most people who rape others understand that it's wrong and that there are laws against it. I don't know how much effect a campaign publicizing such widely known facts would have.


----------



## Anonymous07

Racer said:


> They do. "No means No" campaign stuff. The problem though. Describe how you decide when to say 'yes' and how many "no's" you issued before you said 'yes'... Ever tell a guy like your husband 'no'. And I bet you still have sex with him and he still tries to get in your pants; maybe not that night, but he'll continue to try the next day, and the next and the next. See the problem?
> 
> Guys aren't quite so evasive about when we want to have sex with you; We make efforts and take actions to let you know it's ok. Most won't make you jump through arbitrary hoops or play coy about it. So more often than not, a "no" simply means 'not yet' or 'not tonight'... it does not mean stop trying.
> 
> If you want it to stop. You have to have the emotional force and emphasis (like a yell) behind it for it to have any value.


I don't really see the problem, because when I tell my husband "no, not happening tonight", for what ever reason, he knows to back off. If I say no, I mean it. It's not happening. I'll let him know if I'm interested later that night/day, but until then, I said no. Having sex the following day is different and I wouldn't count that as continued pushing(new day, new event). But once again, if the answer is no, then it should be respected. 

No doesn't mean keep trying and it never should be that way. When I told my ex no, he continued to try to take my pants off. I kept pushing his hands away, fighting him off. He should have backed off the second I said I wasn't interested in having sex. I shouldn't have to yell at him to get my point across. I already said no, I don't want to have sex. It's not my fault that he was a complete a$$ to think he could just have sex with me even though I didn't want to. Every guy should be man enough that when a woman says no, respect her and move on. Rape is never okay. 

And I do hope your wife is in counseling for what she went through. I can't imagine.


----------



## soccermom2three

I don't know if other women my age, (I'm 49), were taught this but I remember in high school every year we would have speakers come to our P.E. classes to talk just to the girls about rape prevention. We were told over and over if we were being raped to just lie there, be quiet and take it. That the more we fought the angrier the rapist would become which would cause him to be more violent. We were taught nothing about self defense.

Now girls are taught to fight for their lives, pee and vomit on the rapist if you can and do not let the rapist take you to a 2nd location even if they have a weapon.

What a difference a few decades make.


----------



## Sandfly

I'm not engaging in this topic in detail, because we've had this subject before, and I came to the conclusion that:

-I'm not a rapist.

-Thank you for implying that if I become your father/uncle/cousin/neighbour, that I will then rape you at random, just because I'm male; 

however, this is not true of me nor even 5% of men.

That's all !


----------



## Cosmos

soccermom2three said:


> I don't know if other women my age, (I'm 49), were taught this but I remember in high school every year we would have speakers come to our P.E. classes to talk just to the girls about rape prevention. We were told over and over if we were being raped to just lie there, be quiet and take it. That the more we fought the angrier the rapist would become which would cause him to be more violent. We were taught nothing about self defense.
> 
> Now girls are taught to fight for their lives, pee and vomit on the rapist if you can and do not let the rapist take you to a 2nd location even if they have a weapon.
> 
> What a difference a few decades make.


Yes, there's quite a difference in attitudes these days. If someone tried to force me into a car at gunpoint, I'd let them shoot me rather than go with them.

I rather like the idea of this device. It might enrage the perpetrator, but he's unlikely to be in any condition to do much harm... Having said that, I see downsides to this device - eg more women being murdered.

Rape axe (anti rape condom) - YouTube


----------



## always_alone

Racer said:


> If you want it to stop. You have to have the emotional force and emphasis (like a yell) behind it for it to have any value.


That's messed up! I can't believe you wrote this.

Rape culture exists because of "boys will be boys and don't really understand the word no" attitudes.

Your wife does sound like she needs some help, and so I sympathize, but there's no excuse for taking advantage when the no doesn't have enough force for your liking.


----------



## soccermom2three

OMG, Cosmos. That would definitely distract him.


----------



## Racer

always_alone said:


> That's messed up! I can't believe you wrote this.
> 
> Rape culture exists because of "boys will be boys and don't really understand the word no" attitudes.
> 
> Your wife does sound like she needs some help, and so I sympathize, but there's no excuse for taking advantage when the no doesn't have enough force for your liking.


By emotional force I do mean all those other things. Language is tricky thing because there is also a ton of subtleties like tone, context, body language, and feel behind the words. 

Example; kissing a girl on her neck while my hands 'wander'. A soft spoken no and touching of my hands, with maybe a bit of a smile and some more exposure of your neck... Hardly a real no. That's more of a "keep kissing me there, don't go so fast" kind of no.

It is still a no. But not one that keeps me from kissing or trying in a bit to 'wander' some more after a bit (cause be honest, you aren't exactly going to tell me when it's time to escalate this a bit further). 

That's sort of what I mean when I say there needs to be the force of emotion. Do you pet a dog who's gone still and has his hackles up? People read and listen as much to those unspoken signals as they do words... A real no invokes more than just the use of the word.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Racer....everything is different now, thanks to all the rapey bullsh*t that has occured. THESE DAYS you have to stop, period. You have to assume any no, even a very soft no, means NOOOO!!!!!

You haven't been dating in a long time, and your marriage and life really has you messed up...so please just take my word for it, you can't have that same attitude now that you had in high school.

It may have seemed ok back then...and a girl may have enjoyed the escalation.

But these days we can't play around like that, we have to be very clear, both men and women. You can't use the old "but if I get her turned on more, it might change to a yes". Instead, you have to let her decide that WITHOUT turning her on more. She has to decide with a clear head. A woman can't also be secretly hoping the guy will escalate and change her mind. She has to say either yes or no, not play games like that.

You can be aroused and still say no.

You can be drunk and saying yes, but that's still a no (she can't give true consent).

Please believe me...things have changed. We don't get to have individual ways of viewing rape. There's only one way to view it: get enthusiastic consent and there won't be any issues.

Same for men. They need to say "no" too when they really mean "no"....even if aroused. 

We all have to get used to these new rules so we can really make progress finally.


----------



## larry.gray

the2ofus said:


> Didn't notice the username, do not get the username. I think I'm missing something.


MRA = Men's Rights Activist

They are the male equivalent of feminists. Many members are over the top, but they are doing some good things. For example, a decade ago, a cuckolded man would be forced to pay child support to children that aren't his even with DNA evidence in almost every state. Now only 3 force a man to do that.

Small peanut = tiny pecker.

Implies that they are jealous men with little penises. Rush Limbaugh claims feminists are ugly women who want the advantages beautiful women get. This would be equally offensive.


----------



## larry.gray

Faithful Wife said:


> You can be drunk and saying yes, but that's still a no (she can't give true consent).


So if both parties have comparable blood alcohol levels and they have sex, is the woman a rapist? After all, he had sex and he was too drunk to consent.


----------



## JCD

Let's be clear here. A 16 year old boy grabbing a girl's boob is sexual assault and is used to fluff up these statistics.

Now, I will easily agree that a boy should not grab a woman's boob without consent. It does not make him a rapist. It makes him a boy who needs a ding across his ear (Once by the girl, another when he gets home) 

Not that I am sure we can get better statistics. It is a private crime with a lot of shame. But I certainly am not sure that THESE statistics are particularly good. 

That doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose of willfully shaming ALL men as rapists. 

So here is to modern culture: in the old days, women who were passive aggressive with their sexuality would want the man to take the lead, or get liquored up so they could avoid the personal responsibility of disappointing their mother when they got that itch.

Now...'why aren't men aggressive any more?"

I think that question answers itself.


----------



## Bridge

JCD said:


> Let's be clear here. A 16 year old boy grabbing a girl's boob is sexual assault and is used to fluff up these statistics.


........................
...................
............
.........

Please provide references.

If we're swapping anecdotes, I'm a plain woman who never thought some man I'd been nice to would break into my work after hours, watch me, and then pin me to food equipment when my back was turned. I never reported it ... does that lump me with someone who had her boobs fondled in sixth grade?


----------



## Bridge

I feel like I need to clarify.

If anyone here is 30+ and acts like an authority on young, budding, sexuality... and tries to define when we cry rape (When our boobs are fondled at sixteen!)

You are a dumbass. Get out.


----------



## Cosmos

Bridge said:


> I feel like I need to clarify.
> 
> If anyone here is 30+ and acts like an authority on young, budding, sexuality... and tries to define when we cry rape (When our boobs are fondled at sixteen!)
> 
> You are a dumbass. Get out.


Non-consensual boob fondling is molestation / sexual assault. It isn't rape and we need to be careful how we use these terms...


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> That doesn't mean they don't serve a purpose of willfully shaming ALL men as rapists.


First of all, let's be clear:. The statistics in no way say that all women have been raped or that all men are rapists. This is what *you* are bringing in as your interpretation. 

Second of all, why do you feel the need to downplay rape to excuse men that behave in reprehensible ways? If more men would stand up and speak out against these crimes instead of continually pretending that women just make them up, we'd have a lot less of the problem.


----------



## Faithful Wife

larry.gray said:


> So if both parties have comparable blood alcohol levels and they have sex, is the woman a rapist? After all, he had sex and he was too drunk to consent.


If rape actually occurred, then yes of course! He should report it.

The more MEN who report rape, the better.

Because it does happen.

They are more often raped by other men, and that's why they don't report.

But whether it was a man or woman, YES all rape should be reported.


----------



## always_alone

Cosmos said:


> Non-consensual boob fondling is molestation / sexual assault. It isn't rape and we need to be careful how we use these terms...


Agreed. But I think Bridge's point is more that women are very often told that our experiences "weren't really" rape, and that it was just a horny 16 year old fondling our boobs.

When the fact is we are *very* clear on the difference. Those a-holes that randomly groped my boobs never got more than an eff-off in reprimand. Those that tried to grab me, hold me down, and (?), also were never reported because I kicked myself free and hightailed it out of there.

The one that violently raped me, and I reported? I was told it wasn't really rape, and I must've consented.

I realize that there are women like Racer's wife that through their own inability to manage their sexuality are feeding this idea that women accuse men just for being men. There are also some outright false allegations. But for the most part women do not make these accusations lightly, and yet there's still this overwhelming tendency to blame them or accuse them of lying.


----------



## Cosmos

always_alone said:


> Agreed. But I think Bridge's point is more that women are very often told that our experiences "weren't really" rape, and that it was just a horny 16 year old fondling our boobs.
> 
> When the fact is we are *very* clear on the difference. Those a-holes that randomly groped my boobs never got more than an eff-off in reprimand. Those that tried to grab me, hold me down, and (?), also were never reported because I kicked myself free and hightailed it out of there.
> 
> The one that violently raped me, and I reported? I was told it wasn't really rape, and I must've consented.
> 
> I realize that there are women like Racer's wife that through their own inability to manage their sexuality are feeding this idea that women accuse men just for being men. There are also some outright false allegations. But for the most part women do not make these accusations lightly, and yet there's still this overwhelming tendency to blame them or accuse them of lying.


If that is the case, my apologies to Bridge - I misunderstood her post.

I'm sorry that you had those experiences, AA.


----------



## larry.gray

Faithful Wife said:


> If rape actually occurred, then yes of course! He should report it.


You managed to not answer my question.

In this hypothetical, you call it "rape" when a guy has sex with a drunk woman because she's unable to consent. If it is "rape" because she was intoxicated, and he is equally intoxicated, then they "raped" each other. Who's he going to report? 

What's he going to do, say "Hey cop, lock us both up for 7 years because we raped each other."

IMHO, we lessen the true meaning of the word when we use rape to define these scenarios.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh yes Larry...you're sooooooo right and what I have said "lessens the meaning of the word" and of course, that's what is really important. The meaning of the word rape.

Not important of course, is the meaning of consent.

(yes, this is snarky sarcasm because you clearly just want to pick apart something I said....)


----------



## Faithful Wife

Here's a nice article about what our MRA creeps think about rape and consent:

Don't Be That Girl Sex Assault Posters In Edmonton Spark Anger, Debate


----------



## pidge70

Faithful Wife said:


> Here's a nice article about what our MRA creeps think about rape and consent:
> 
> Don't Be That Girl Sex Assault Posters In Edmonton Spark Anger, Debate


Geez, wtf?


----------



## larry.gray

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh yes Larry...you're sooooooo right and what I have said "lessens the meaning of the word" and of course, that's what is really important. The meaning of the word rape.
> 
> Not important of course, is the meaning of consent.
> 
> (yes, this is snarky sarcasm because you clearly just want to pick apart something I said....)


That's not what I'm doing.

I'm not picking it apart. I'm calling you absolutely wrong on the assertion you made. If a woman is so far gone that she is unable to speak, then it is rape. If she's capable of saying no and doesn't, then it isn't rape.


----------



## larry.gray

pidge70 said:


> Geez, wtf?


As I said above - many of the MRA types go over the top.

At the same time, they and the feminists are doing us a favor. They are pushing us to a reasonable middle ground. 

Without the feminists we'd have many unreasonable things undressed. They are passionate and driven. When they hit on the things that those in the middle say are unreasonable, they are able to shift the debate and change things. When they do things that the middle says are unreasonable, the MRA dudes are able to stifle the movement.

Ditto for the other way around. The MRA dudes have a bunch of unreasonable stuff, but at the same time they are right on some issues.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Sure, Larry, I'm wrong.


----------



## pidge70

larry.gray said:


> That's not what I'm doing.
> 
> I'm not picking it apart. I'm calling you absolutely wrong on the assertion you made. If a woman is so far gone that she is unable to speak, then it is rape. If she's capable of saying no and doesn't, then it isn't rape.


Whew, good to know. That means I was in fact raped.


----------



## Bridge

Cosmos said:


> Non-consensual boob fondling is molestation / sexual assault. It isn't rape and we need to be careful how we use these terms...


So sorry. Everyone who's never been physically attacked and and held against their will by someone twice their size; please keep debating the semantics of rape! Bickering on a message board sure solves problems.


----------



## larry.gray

pidge70 said:


> Whew, good to know. That means I was in fact raped.


I'm sorry that happened to you.

I do realize the statistics overwhelmingly would state not one thing happened to the a-hole that did it, huh? That's the same story with those I know that have had it happen to you. I know many victims of both genders, and not one who's had their offender convicted.


----------



## larry.gray

One of the commenters on that article articulated it better than I can:



> What the people here are talking about is a woman who, to any observer, would seem to consent, but then when she sobers up, for whatever reason, regrets consenting, so she retroactively declares that she was too drunk to consent and claiming the guy raped her. Whether or not that is a common scenario, this is what the people here are talking about.
> 
> People like you who insinuate that these people think that sex with an unconscious drunk girl is okay are using a strawman to demonize people.
> 
> I'll try to summarize it as clearly as possible.
> 
> Sex with a consenting sober partner = okay (of course)
> Sex with an unconscious or incoherent partner = rape
> Sex with someone who is drunk but consenting and participating at the time, who then later regrets and feels someone took advantage = morally dubious but not rape
> 
> One cannot retroactively declare themself too drunk to consent, or withdraw consent retroactively.
> 
> Some insane activists are claiming that ANY amount of alcohol eliminates consent, which is utterly insane. Once a guy on a reality show was describing his seduction moves which included homemade dinner with wine... activists went and screamed that he was a date rapist. This is the insanity people denounce, insanity like the woman quoted here who said "women NEVER lie about sex", when there are dozens of high profile cases of such.


----------



## pidge70

larry.gray said:


> I'm sorry that happened to you.
> 
> I do realize the statistics overwhelmingly would state not one thing happened to the a-hole that did it, huh? That's the same story with those I know that have had it happen to you. I know many victims of both genders, and not one who's had their offender convicted.


I was 14, drunk and passed out. I woke up with someone on me and in me. He was 18. Technically would be rape anyway as I was underage. I never told anyone till I was 18. He raped another girl in the interim and she had the guts to tell. He got 7yrs in prison. While I have moved on from what he did to me, the guilt of her rape will always weigh heavily on my heart.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Have sex with all the drunk women you want, Larry. I'm just "insane" to think that being drunk negates your ability to give consent. Yep.


----------



## larry.gray

pidge70 said:


> I was 14, drunk and passed out. I woke up with someone on me and in me. He was 18. Technically would be rape anyway as I was underage. I never told anyone till I was 18. He raped another girl in the interim and she had the guts to tell. He got 7yrs in prison. While I have moved on from what he did to me, the guilt of her rape will always weigh heavily on my heart.


Oh crap, double sorry.


----------



## larry.gray

Faithful Wife said:


> Have sex with all the drunk women you want, Larry. I'm just "insane" to think that being drunk negates your ability to give consent. Yep.



That would be the straw man showing up there.

Since the only person I intend to have sex with now and for the foreseeable future is my spouse, I don't think that's relevant for me. Although I must confess, I did have sex with her two weeks ago when she was highly intoxicated...


----------



## pidge70

larry.gray said:


> Oh crap, double sorry.


No worries. You didn't have anything to do with it. I was young and scared. I didn't exactly have a good home life so I didn't have anyone I could trust enough to have my back.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yes it is totally a straw man, because what is REALLY important is to protect a man's right to have sex with a drunk girl.


----------



## larry.gray

I'd be curious how many men's views on this change when they have a 18 y/o daughter, and the flipside when women have a 18 y/o son.

I have a 18 y/o daughter. She happens to be 5'3" and 105 lbs. Not much able to resist. In your drunk scenario, I'd feel bad for her that she regrets her choice but I'd not see it as rape.

I wonder how the women would react to their son being charged with rape for having sex with a woman that had a BAC of .15. Would they still think he should be locked up?


----------



## pidge70

> I wonder how the women would react to their son being charged with rape for having sex with a woman that had a BAC of .15. Would they still think he should be locked up?


I have 3 girls and a boy. I would hope that I raised all of them with enough sense to not get into a situation like that in the first place.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I have two kids, one boy and one girl, and one of them was raped (not in an alcohol situation).

I feel the same about both of them and their safety.

If you (anyone) honestly care about getting real consent, you (anyone) will do whatever you can to make sure you get it. If that means not having sex with someone because they are drunk, is it really so hard to just, you know, wait until they aren't? I really don't feel bad for anyone who can't just wait until real consent can be given. Ohhhh boo...straw man! Whatev.


----------



## Created2Write

larry.gray said:


> I'd be curious how many men's views on this change when they have a 18 y/o daughter, and the flipside when women have a 18 y/o son.
> 
> I have a 18 y/o daughter. She happens to be 5'3" and 105 lbs. Not much able to resist. In your drunk scenario, I'd feel bad for her that she regrets her choice but I'd not see it as rape.
> 
> I wonder how the women would react to their son being charged with rape for having sex with a woman that had a BAC of .15. Would they still think he should be locked up?


For me it really would depend. There are different levels of drunk. I've been intoxicated, but still knew exactly what I was doing sexually. I wouldn't call that rape if a man had sex with me. I've also been intoxicated where I kept passing out for ten minutes at a time(although I was talking in my sleep), and I absolutely would call that rape. 

I wouldn't want an innocent 18 year old to be locked away for something he genuinely thought was a consensual sexual fling, but nor do I want a guy who takes advantage of girls who are drunk to get away with what they do, either.


----------



## Created2Write

Faithful Wife said:


> I have two kids, one boy and one girl, and one of them was raped (not in an alcohol situation).
> 
> I feel the same about both of them and their safety.
> 
> If you (anyone) honestly care about getting real consent, you (anyone) will do whatever you can to make sure you get it. If that means not having sex with someone because they are drunk, is it really so hard to just, you know, wait until they aren't? I really don't feel bad for anyone who can't just wait until real consent can be given. Ohhhh boo...straw man! Whatev.


I agree with this. Clear, unambiguous consent should be given whether alcohol is involved or not, before a man makes a move on the woman. The line between consent and lack of consent isn't very wide.


----------



## Anonymous07

Faithful Wife said:


> I have two kids, one boy and one girl, and one of them was raped (not in an alcohol situation).
> 
> I feel the same about both of them and their safety.
> 
> If you (anyone) honestly care about getting real consent, you (anyone) will do whatever you can to make sure you get it. If that means not having sex with someone because they are drunk, is it really so hard to just, you know, wait until they aren't? I really don't feel bad for anyone who can't just wait until real consent can be given. Ohhhh boo...straw man! Whatev.


:iagree:

If alcohol is involved, it's better to just not have sex. Even a small amount of alcohol can impair a person's judgement, so I would hope my son would just not get himself into that situation.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Totally agree, anonymous. Though, it mostly applies to the first time between partners who are not exclusive or haven't had some talks first, and between casual partners. Or any other case where there might be any questions.

Whereas, a couple who are in an exclusive relationship and have ongoing communication and implied or direct consent, can have all the drunk sex they want. 

It is about protecting ourselves from false accusations and about protecting those we do want to have sex with from unwanted sex. If we really do intend to have only consensual sex, then just not having sex anytime there could be any question of consent should be easy.

I can't think of any reason to fight against the idea of SOBER enthusiastic consent. 

Again, when consent has been blanket-granted (as with my husband and myself), literally anything goes. So there's really no reason to bring any counter argument into it. Want to be able to have drunk sex? Get consent when they were sober before you start drinking. Problem solved.


----------



## EleGirl

soccermom2three said:


> I don't know if other women my age, (I'm 49), were taught this but I remember in high school every year we would have speakers come to our P.E. classes to talk just to the girls about rape prevention. We were told over and over if we were being raped to just lie there, be quiet and take it. That the more we fought the angrier the rapist would become which would cause him to be more violent. We were taught nothing about self defense.
> 
> Now girls are taught to fight for their lives, pee and vomit on the rapist if you can and do not let the rapist take you to a 2nd location even if they have a weapon.
> 
> What a difference a few decades make.


I think that the difference in what was taught now and then comes from the things that law enforcement has learned.. after all we now have decades of good info that has been collected and analyzed.

We now know that rapists are very likely to harm and/or kill their victim even if she/he does not fight back. This is especially true with stranger rape.


----------



## EleGirl

Often it's a drunk guy and a drunk woman. To me it's not clear in this situation at their raped the other. What is often assumed is that the male, no matter how drunk he is, raped the female no matter how drunk she is.


----------



## ocotillo

Interesting discussion.  There is a booklet freely available on the internet published by the National District Attorneys Association that attempts to define the line between drunken sex and rape. The line appears to revolve around the term, "Too intoxicated to consent."

From the booklet:

"Generally, there is not a bight-line test for showing that the victim was too intoxicated to consent, thereby distinguishing sexual assault from drunken sex. In drunk driving cases, the prosecution can show that the driver had a certain BAC; therefore the driver is guilty. Sexual assault cases involving alcohol are not as clear cut. There is not a universal BAC at which the law or the experts agree that people are no longer capable of consenting to intercourse. Instead, the equation involves an analysis of the totality of the circumstances and numerous factors. The factors discussed herein are divided into two parts: (1) general factors and (2) predatory behavior on the part of the defendant." (p.8)

A major question in determining the second factor above appears to be disparity in intoxication levels:

"The more sober he was, the easier it is to show he was a predator, especially if the victim was extremely intoxicated" (p.11) 

Conversely:

"The more intoxicated the victim was, the less likely it is that she was capable of consenting." (p.9)

The booklet goes on to list intoxication factors for consideration. I'm a light drinker myself and they all strike me as symptoms of advanced stages of intoxication rather than simply being tipsy. (p.9)


----------



## Thor

Anonymous07 said:


> While her actions of getting wasted and going to a guy's house(that she doesn't really know) isn't a great idea, it still doesn't mean she deserves to be raped. It doesn't matter if the woman is dressing provocatively and is drunk, if she says "no", then it means NO. I hate when people blame the woman for getting raped/sex forced upon them. It is never the victims fault.


As the father of two girls in their 20's, this is a fine line to walk. The victim is never to blame, yet the victim might have done something to increase the odds of becoming a victim.

Walking around downtown Detroit at midnight with a wad of $100 bills poking out of your pocket is legal, yet you make yourself an attractive target to be robbed at gunpoint, or beaten senseless with an iron pipe and your cash stolen.

No, the criminal had no right either morally or legally to whack you over the head to steal your money, but you did do something to increase the odds of him choosing you.

My girls know to never accept a drink from a person they do not know well and whom they trust completely. They know not to walk alone in the dark, especially in places with higher crime rates. They know to be alert when in marginal locations (back hallway at a mall, in the parking lot at night, etc). These are all good practical ways to reduce their chances of being victimized.

Honestly I don't know if real statistics would support the idea that provocative clothing increases the odds of being raped. Randomly selected victims of stranger rape are reportedly picked because they seem less athletic and less likely to be effective resistors. The hot in shape woman wearing the sexy clothes may be rejected as too physically competent. But in a party or bar scenario the revealing clothing may be found on the drunk woman who is being very flirty, and thus the totality makes her more likely to be victimized than the wall flower in modest clothing.


----------



## JCD

I agree with you Faithful Wife.

I think that any man who is drunk when he has sex should accuse his partner of rape. 

When some of these girls get hit with bogus accusations and are forced to defend themselves from almost impossible to defend against claims, then yes, we might come to a honest middle ground.

Until then, we will have jury members such as your lovely self who seem to fervently believe that a single glass of wine so totally removes the ability of consent from a woman (but ONLY a woman) that not only can't she string together a coherent sentence, but is unable to string two letters together "N...O" And any man who dares to buy a girl a drink is full of nefarious intent...even if he matches her drink for drink (and then some)

These aren't a couple having a good time. He's obviously a predator.

The trivial detail that she is in fact talking about other things during sex and may have been actively interacting at the time is a fact with no bearing on the case., at least in your eyes.

See...he didn't call later and her girlfriends (such as your lovely self) decided to indict him for his wicked ways of actually offering a girl a drink...which she accepted. So now she feels used and it is a single feminist conversation to go from 'feeling used' to 'feeling raped'. Chris Rock has a lot to say about Angry Mad Women.

So I will have that conversation with my son. Don't buy a woman a drink if you plan to ask her for sex. Heck, I'll probably make sure he tapes her consent because with this standard you are setting, anything less than a notarized statement of willing is grounds for his incarceration.

Of course, MANY women consider a little liquid courage a romantic and stylish precursor to intimacy. Too bad for them too.

You are a buzz kill, FW.


----------



## JCD

I recall a book I read on police stories. A 'good girl' would disappear for three days.

When she later came home, she would have this story about being kidnapped...in a park...in the middle of a crowd...in broad daylight.

The police were forced to investigate and they found out she was holed up in a hot sheet motel with some guy...who suddenly got hit with rape charges.

See...she was a GOOD girl. And good girls didn't do that kind of thing.


My favorite quote was when the police asked this one girl if she wanted to bring up charges against this boy. "No...but can you make him marry me?"

It isn't that I don't believe in rape. I do. I don't think we should dismiss these charges when they are brought. I have two daughters.

But...this automatically treats every woman as an unimpeachable paragon of virtue and honesty and casts the male in the absolute opposite light, fighting to prove his innocence. See...having two daughters work both ways. Sometimes, love them as I do, they can be a bit...deceitful. Manipulative. I have known MANY deceitful and manipulative women in my life. How about you?

Prosecutors had this phrase for some of these rapes: "feeling dirty rapes". Where the facts and tone of the case gave them pause.

It would be nice if a woman once in a while admitted that yeah, sometimes the facts on the ground were a bit dicey for reasonable people to judge.

Alas...


----------



## JCD

Anonymous07 said:


> :iagree:
> 
> If alcohol is involved, it's better to just not have sex. Even a small amount of alcohol can impair a person's judgement, so I would hope my son would just not get himself into that situation.


Hmm. I have drunk a 12 pack of Baccardi Breezers in a short time and had women just about throwing themselves on my penis and I still had enough judgment to say 'no' to sex. I was at the 'puking, staggering' point of drunkenness.

Is that because I have super male consent powers or is it that maybe this is a vast oversimplification of a complex problem?


----------



## greenfern

JCD said:


> I recall a book I read on police stories. A 'good girl' would disappear for three days.
> 
> When she later came home, she would have this story about being kidnapped...in a park...in the middle of a crowd...in broad daylight.
> 
> The police were forced to investigate and they found out she was holed up in a hot sheet motel with some guy...who suddenly got hit with rape charges.
> 
> See...she was a GOOD girl. And good girls didn't do that kind of thing.
> 
> 
> My favorite quote was when the police asked this one girl if she wanted to bring up charges against this boy. "No...but can you make him marry me?"
> 
> It isn't that I don't believe in rape. I do. I don't think we should dismiss these charges when they are brought. I have two daughters.
> 
> But...this automatically treats every woman as an unimpeachable paragon of virtue and honesty and casts the male in the absolute opposite light, fighting to prove his innocence. See...having two daughters work both ways. Sometimes, love them as I do, they can be a bit...deceitful. Manipulative. I have known MANY deceitful and manipulative women in my life. How about you?
> 
> Prosecutors had this phrase for some of these rapes: "feeling dirty rapes". Where the facts and tone of the case gave them pause.
> 
> It would be nice if a woman once in a while admitted that yeah, sometimes the facts on the ground were a bit dicey for reasonable people to judge.
> 
> Alas...


I think this kind of story is very unusual, particularly in the last 30 years. It is far more common for real rapes to be unreported than for so-called "feeling dirty rapes" to be reported.


----------



## JCD

greenfern said:


> I think this kind of story is very unusual, particularly in the last 30 years. It is far more common for real rapes to be unreported than for so-called "feeling dirty rapes" to be reported.


This was an older book from the 60's where women had to protect their reputation a lot more. Female sexuality was less of an accepted practice.

But they threw the guy under a bus to save themselves a painful conversation with mom.

Now...hopefully such women are rare.

I think it naïve to think they are nonexistent.


----------



## MSP

If being drunk, although able to walk and talk, is still grounds for a rape case, because the woman doesn't know what she's doing, then logically, it should also be a valid excuse for drunk driving. 

Judge: "You are accused of driving while impaired by alcohol."
Defendant: "But I was drunk. Therefore, I was not responsible for my decision to drive."
Judge: "Oh. That makes sense. Off you go."


----------



## thejjones

Another issue is that rape victims don't get the help they need through therapy because they don't report it or just don't want to speak about it again.

Women who are raped as children are two to three times as likely to be raped again as adults. 

I was sexually abused as a child and never told anyone. I was raped again at 19. So I am proof of that statistic.

Things are definitely improving. 50 years ago nobody spoke about rape ever. But we still need to encourage more victims, especially young victims, to come forward.


----------



## JCD

thejjones said:


> Another issue is that rape victims don't get the help they need through therapy because they don't report it or just don't want to speak about it again.
> 
> Women who are raped as children are two to three times as likely to be raped again as adults.
> 
> I was sexually abused as a child and never told anyone. I was raped again at 19. So I am proof of that statistic.
> 
> Things are definitely improving. 50 years ago nobody spoke about rape ever. But we still need to encourage more victims, especially young victims, to come forward.


I agree. Because here is a statistic you don't see bandied about quite as much: a very small number of men make up a very large percentage of rapes. A guy who does it once wants to do it again and again and again.

So every rapist gotten rid of makes it safer for everyone.



> Pooling data from four samples in which 1,882 men were assessed for acts of interpersonal
> violence, we report on 120 men whose self-reported acts met legal definitions of
> rape or attempted rape, but who were never prosecuted by criminal justice authorities. A
> majority of these undetected rapists were repeat rapists, and a majority also committed
> other acts of interpersonal violence. *The repeat rapists averaged 5.8 rapes each. The 120
> rapists were responsible for 1,225 separate acts of interpersonal violence, including rape,
> battery, and child physical and sexual abuse. *These findings mirror those from studies of
> incarcerated sex offenders (Abel, Becker, Mittelman, Cunningham-Rathner, Rouleau, &
> Murphy, 1987; Weinrott and Saylor, 1991), indicating high rates of both repeat rape and
> multiple types of offending. Implications for the investigation and prosecution of this socalled
> "hidden" rape are discussed.


----------



## larry.gray

JCD said:


> I agree. Because here is a statistic you don't see bandied about quite as much: a very small number of men make up a very large percentage of rapes. A guy who does it once wants to do it again and again and again.
> 
> So every rapist gotten rid of makes it safer for everyone.


I really liked the sentencing reform that hit in the 90's. Prior to my state doing that the average time served was 11 months for first degree rape. They had the same men doing it over and over again. Hearing that statistic alone made me a strong advocate for the law and I was involved in helping it's passage.

Now it's 8-1/3 years for the first offense, 15 for the second and life for the third. Sounds good to me. I could see _maybe_ a single wrong conviction, but by the third time it's pretty certain the guy is no good.


----------



## Sandfly

MSP said:


> If being drunk, although able to walk and talk, is still grounds for a rape case, because the woman doesn't know what she's doing, then logically, it should also be a valid excuse for drunk driving.
> 
> Judge: "You are accused of driving while impaired by alcohol."
> Defendant: "But I was drunk. Therefore, I was not responsible for my decision to drive."
> Judge: "Oh. That makes sense. Off you go."


Back in my home country when I was a boy, drunken-ness did used to be an accepted excuse.

People used to get off with assaults, smashing up their cars. Got off lightly, I should say. Drink driving was normal.


----------



## Faithful Wife

So JCD, you just skimmed my posts so you could make a point against me I assume?

You missed the part where I openly invite any man to make rape charges? Where I said it DOES occur? You just painted in yourself all the language about how it "only applies to women" and then got all high and mighty about it, even though I never once said that, nor do I think that?

Also please note that I have NO WHERE EVER implied that all men are rapists or that rape is a common thing that happens every time someone has sex after one beer. I have said nothing outrageous or hyperbolic. I have talked logically about consent culture, which is new to our thinking.

Long ago, like the 80's, lol!...people refused to listen to logic about wearing condoms (especially for casual sex), too. They poo poo'ed them, said they'd never do it, what a boner killer, etc.

Sorry but, we all need to protect each other. And not wearing a condom is just stupid.

Again, if you want to have drunk sex, get consent before you start drinking.

That's a buzz kill?

So is wearing a condom but that's what we have to do to protect ourselves and each other.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Faithful Wife said:


> *If rape actually occurred, then yes of course! He should report it.
> 
> The more MEN who report rape, the better.
> 
> Because it does happen.
> 
> They are more often raped by other men, and that's why they don't report.
> 
> But whether it was a man or woman, YES all rape should be reported.*


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> So JCD, you just skimmed my posts so you could make a point against me I assume?
> 
> You missed the part where I openly invite any man to make rape charges? Where I said it DOES occur? You just painted in yourself all the language about how it "only applies to women" and then got all high and mighty about it, even though I never once said that, nor do I think that?
> 
> Also please note that I have NO WHERE EVER implied that all men are rapists or that rape is a common thing that happens every time someone has sex after one beer. I have said nothing outrageous or hyperbolic. I have talked logically about consent culture, which is new to our thinking.
> 
> Long ago, like the 80's, lol!...people refused to listen to logic about wearing condoms (especially for casual sex), too. They poo poo'ed them, said they'd never do it, what a boner killer, etc.
> 
> Sorry but, we all need to protect each other. And not wearing a condom is just stupid.
> 
> Again, if you want to have drunk sex, get consent before you start drinking.
> 
> That's a buzz kill?
> 
> So is wearing a condom but that's what we have to do to protect ourselves and each other.



If you don't like rotten debating tactics to be used against you, don't use them against Larry. I knew exactly what I was doing.

He never 'defended' drunken rapist sex. And yet that is what you squarely stated.

For your viewing pleasure:










Let me outline a scenario for you. (and no, this is NOT me defending 'drunken rape sex')

My son goes on a date. They both enjoy the time together. They have a drink. They have another drink. They do to HER apartment and they have sex.

My son is young. He says or does the wrong thing. Maybe he disappears after sex. Maybe he breaks Nana's vase. Maybe she doesn't remember much because she took cold medicine or her friends pills or whatever.

This is the legal standard you and Miss. "A Small Amount of Alcohol Inhibits your Judgment" is setting.

IF she decides to lodge a rape complaint against my son, all she needs to prove to make it credible and make him almost indefensible is to *prove she had a drop of alcohol in the last 24 hour period.*

He can assert that she never said no. Tough noogies, her judgment was 'impaired'. He can assert she was kissing him back. Tough noogies, her judgment was 'impaired.' He can state that she was solving a Rubik's Cube right after sex. Tough...well, you get the idea.

This is a ridiculous standard and it is to 'protect' people. Unfortunately it is only to protect HALF the people...while setting up the other half for incarceration.

And yes, a buzz kill.

++

Woman: "Oooh...you know what I want to do? I want to go to Mitchell's, enjoy a bottle of bubbly, and then go walk in the park moonlight and see what develops." (Woman speak for 'let's go have sex later')

Man: "So you are sober and unimpaired?"

Woman: "I guess..." confused.

Man: "So...do you mind signing this waiver?"

Woman: (Reading) "This says you are going to have sex later...with ME...I never said yes!"

Man: (abashed) "Well, I know...but you aren't allowed to say yes AFTER you have any bubbly...so can we cut that from the program? Or you need to sign the waiver."

Woman: "Why do I need to decide now? I'm certainly losing the mood. Why do you think I'm so easy that you can get a sure thing for a dinner and drinks?"

Man: "I never said that, but IF we have sex, I need permission and 'he said she said' doesn't protect me."

Woman: "And if I change my mind?" (Her mind is changing very quickly)

Man: (detecting he is in a totally no win scenario here) "Well (shakes her hand), thank you for your time."

And here is the thing: You can 'assert' that an 'exclusive' relationship can go have as much drunken sex as they want, but by this definition, this isn't true. Because ANY sex with a woman can be called rape these days. She never 'waives' her ability to say 'no' (nor would I want her to). Just like wives can claim rape any time despite vows and what not.

Legally, this standard SUCKS...for men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

(yawn....)


----------



## Faithful Wife

Consent Culture | because safewords are sexy


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> (yawn....)


Which is as cogent a rebuttal as I expected.

I made a valid critique. You got anything else?


----------



## Faithful Wife

I have made many valid points and statements and you don't seem able to understand ANY of them....yet you expect me to actually respond to what you are writing as if I am actually going to learn something from YOUR POINTS? Right. Just as soon as you learn something from my points I will be happy to open myself to learning something from yours.

You dug up my posts and went after me, not the other way around. Yet you didn't have any intention at all of actually considering my points....and you want to whine that I didn't show my ULTIMATE RESPECT for your COGENT REBUTTAL??? :rofl:

Right.


----------



## TikiKeen

JCD, you seem to have little grasp of the complexity of reporting and investigating a rape case.

Were she to report it, under your "come on up to my place" scenario, she would have to (cogently and precisely) repeat her claim to no less than three people: initial investigator, two different medical staff at the hospital, and at least one officer. Should her case make it to court, she will then have to re-tell it, just as precisely, there, and be grilled about the details. Also, her sexual past might be called into question, as would her psychological status/any diagnoses, and her family dynamics.

At the hospital, she'll be examined as a "rape kit" is collected for physical evidence. In case you're fuzzy on the details, here's how that goes...


----------



## ocotillo

JCD said:


> Legally, this standard SUCKS...for men.


I would agree if the hypotheticals you outlined were true, JCD. I linked to a professional legal publication written for prosecutors that describes a viable charging scenario via the twin prongs of disparity of intoxication and degree of intoxication. We're not talking about one or two drinks here.



JCD said:


> She never 'waives' her ability to say 'no' (nor would I want her to).


Right. Basic human rights can't be negotiated away by private agreement.


----------



## always_alone

TikiKeen said:


> JCD, you seem to have little grasp of the complexity of reporting and investigating a rape case.
> 
> Were she to report it, under your "come on up to my place" scenario, she would have to (cogently and precisely) repeat her claim to no less than three people: initial investigator, two different medical staff at the hospital, and at least one officer. Should her case make it to court, she will then have to re-tell it, just as precisely, there, and be grilled about the details. Also, her sexual past might be called into question, as would her psychological status/any diagnoses, and her family dynamics.
> 
> At the hospital, she'll be examined as a "rape kit" is collected for physical evidence. In case you're fuzzy on the details, here's how that goes...


And let's not forget that she will be put under the microscope for what she was wearing, whether she was a virgin and how many sexual partners she's had, how many bruises or scars there are on her body or whether her clothing was ripped, whether she had done anything "risky", and just how much she had to drink, and on an on.

In a rape case it is the basically the woman on trial, and it drives me crazy that so many people want to rug-sweep it as her "feeling guilty" for consenting to sex. This is actually quite rare and is usually discovered quickly through the investigation. 

Yet there is such an invested interest in making sure the rape victim is the one who is shamed and made to feel guilty. WTF.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


>


Oh, yes, such a buzzkill for the poor sods who might have to think about getting consent from their sex partner. So much more exciting and fun to gang bang a passed out girl.

(which is pretty much the standard for too intoxicated to consent)


----------



## Thor

JCD said:


> Let me outline a scenario for you. (and no, this is NOT me defending 'drunken rape sex')
> 
> My son goes on a date. They both enjoy the time together. They have a drink. They have another drink. They do to HER apartment and they have sex.
> 
> My son is young. He says or does the wrong thing. Maybe he disappears after sex. Maybe he breaks Nana's vase. Maybe she doesn't remember much because she took cold medicine or her friends pills or whatever.
> 
> This is the legal standard you and Miss. "A Small Amount of Alcohol Inhibits your Judgment" is setting.
> 
> IF she decides to lodge a rape complaint against my son, all she needs to prove to make it credible and make him almost indefensible is to *prove she had a drop of alcohol in the last 24 hour period.*
> 
> He can assert that she never said no. Tough noogies, her judgment was 'impaired'. He can assert she was kissing him back. Tough noogies, her judgment was 'impaired.' He can state that she was solving a Rubik's Cube right after sex. Tough...well, you get the idea.
> 
> This is a ridiculous standard and it is to 'protect' people. Unfortunately it is only to protect HALF the people...while setting up the other half for incarceration.
> 
> And yes, a buzz kill.
> 
> ++
> 
> Woman: "Oooh...you know what I want to do? I want to go to Mitchell's, enjoy a bottle of bubbly, and then go walk in the park moonlight and see what develops." (Woman speak for 'let's go have sex later')
> 
> Man: "So you are sober and unimpaired?"
> 
> Woman: "I guess..." confused.
> 
> Man: "So...do you mind signing this waiver?"
> 
> Woman: (Reading) "This says you are going to have sex later...with ME...I never said yes!"
> 
> Man: (abashed) "Well, I know...but you aren't allowed to say yes AFTER you have any bubbly...so can we cut that from the program? Or you need to sign the waiver."
> 
> Woman: "Why do I need to decide now? I'm certainly losing the mood. Why do you think I'm so easy that you can get a sure thing for a dinner and drinks?"
> 
> Man: "I never said that, but IF we have sex, I need permission and 'he said she said' doesn't protect me."
> 
> Woman: "And if I change my mind?" (Her mind is changing very quickly)
> 
> Man: (detecting he is in a totally no win scenario here) "Well (shakes her hand), thank you for your time."
> 
> And here is the thing: You can 'assert' that an 'exclusive' relationship can go have as much drunken sex as they want, but by this definition, this isn't true. Because ANY sex with a woman can be called rape these days. She never 'waives' her ability to say 'no' (nor would I want her to). Just like wives can claim rape any time despite vows and what not.
> 
> Legally, this standard SUCKS...for men.


This is pretty much the college campus requirement now. No, it isn't enforced, and we know the college kids are wildly violating it. But on some campuses the rules are almost as you described in your scenario, and charges can be brought against the young man who skips the legal cya of multiple verbal consents and determination of sobriety of the young woman.


----------



## larry.gray

Thor said:


> This is pretty much the college campus requirement now. No, it isn't enforced, and we know the college kids are wildly violating it. But on some campuses the rules are almost as you described in your scenario, and charges can be brought against the young man who skips the legal cya of multiple verbal consents and determination of sobriety of the young woman.


In that scenario where he is as intoxicated as she is, then she should be punished as much, right?

If not, why not?


----------



## greenfern

Thor said:


> This is pretty much the college campus requirement now. No, it isn't enforced, and we know the college kids are wildly violating it. But on some campuses the rules are almost as you described in your scenario, and charges can be brought against the young man who skips the legal cya of multiple verbal consents and determination of sobriety of the young woman.


There are a very small number of big publicity incidents where charges were brought in cases like this, but I really doubt (someone with more time than me, please show me links to prove me wrong) that this is anything more than a 'see how rough men have it women have all the power' kind of story.

If there are 10,000 uncontested rapes (and I will definitely grant that rapes in which moderate levels of alcohol was consumed by both parties are contestable) and 2 contestable rapes I just don't see why we are spending all our time talking about the alcohol scenario.

The alcohol scenario where a girl is passed out drunk and wakes up to a strange man on top of her is uncontestable, IMHO, and is highly relevant, very common, and mostly unreported because the woman knows that due to her alcohol consumption her credibility will be in doubt..


----------



## ocotillo

greenfern said:


> There are a very small number of big publicity incidents where charges were brought in cases like this, but I really doubt (someone with more time than me, please show me links to prove me wrong) that this is anything more than a 'see how rough men have it women have all the power' kind of story.
> 
> If there are 10,000 uncontested rapes (and I will definitely grant that rapes in which moderate levels of alcohol was consumed by both parties are contestable) and 2 contestable rapes I just don't see why we are spending all our time talking about the alcohol scenario.
> 
> The alcohol scenario where a girl is passed out drunk and wakes up to a strange man on top of her is uncontestable, IMHO, and is highly relevant, very common, and mostly unreported because the woman knows that due to her alcohol consumption her credibility will be in doubt..


I'm confused by the terms, "Uncontested," "Contestable" and "Uncontestable"

(e.g. A "Not guilty" plea by its very nature constitutes contestment.)


----------



## greenfern

ocotillo said:


> I'm confused by the terms, "Uncontested," "Contestable" and "Uncontestable"
> 
> (e.g. A "Not guilty" plea by its very nature constitutes contestment.)


I just meant in the terms that people (both men and women) on this thread agree a rape occurred vs it is a woman exaggerating or even outright lying about the rape.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## ocotillo

greenfern said:


> I just meant in the terms that people (both men and women) on this thread agree a rape occurred vs it is a woman exaggerating or even outright lying about the rape.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Thank you.

In answer to the question of why we're spinning our wheels on the alcohol question, I think it's because there's a spectrum of views here and we all tend to speak from the heart and personal circumstance here on TAM.

Personally, I think it would stand our legal system on it's head if on one hand we hold people legally responsible for the decision to get behind the wheel of a vehicle when they are mildly "buzzed," while on the other hand, we hold that they are not legally responsible for the decision to have sex while in the same physical state.

When we talk about incapacitation from intoxication, we probably should be talking about inability to stand, walk a straight line; speak coherently; perform cognitive tasks like operate a cell phone or conduct a credit card transaction at a store, etc., or even as you say, outright unconsciousness.


----------



## TikiKeen

We haven't even begun to discuss things like GHB, or plying a victim with drinks or drugs, then discrediting his or her claims during investigation....yes, it does happen.

Oddly, I see few statistics being cited in this conversation. Bluntly, I'm appalled at the number of men questioning police methodology, state and federal reporting methods, and the flat assumption that false reports are higher than they really are among both men and women.

To wit...

and

this, about false report statistics and study modalities.


----------



## greenfern

ocotillo said:


> When we talk about incapacitation from intoxication, we probably should be talking about inability to stand, walk a straight line; speak coherently; perform cognitive tasks like operate a cell phone or conduct a credit card transaction at a store, etc., or even as you say, outright unconsciousness.


:iagree:


----------



## JCD

TikiKeen said:


> We haven't even begun to discuss things like GHB, or plying a victim with drinks or drugs, then discrediting his or her claims during investigation....yes, it does happen.
> 
> Oddly, I see few statistics being cited in this conversation. Bluntly, I'm appalled at the number of men questioning police methodology, state and federal reporting methods, and the flat assumption that false reports are higher than they really are among both men and women.
> 
> To wit...
> 
> and
> 
> this, about false report statistics and study modalities.


We aren't talking about police methodology. We are talking about a proposed legal standard of intoxication and consent put forth by FW which have some pretty horrible consequences.

And we aren't talking about obvious cases. Some girl who willingly goes in for a clock exam and a rape kit is a pretty credible witness considering how traumatic that is.

Instead, we are looking at the inequity being asserted here. 

A 'drunk girl' can say yes...and not mean it. She doesn't even need to know she is drunk. She can scream 'take me to bed or lose me forever' to a guy in front of witnesses and yet FW is asserting it is still technically and legally rape because we can't KNOW if she gave consent.

Huh.

Somehow, the woman is expected to monitor her alcohol intake to drive a vehicle, but is not expected to monitor her alcohol to ride the 'hot' Rod. She is let off the hook.

Taking exception to this isn't 'wanting to bang passed out drunken girls'. It is highlighting how abusive and inequitable this standard is and how it's a lousy precedent for a lot of other things.


----------



## TikiKeen

Ah, but by questioning the current legal standard, you are questioning the methodology.

Anyone can say yes, then change one's mind in the middle of the act to a "no", especially if said sex act is not what they agreed upon, regardless of intoxication levels.

That's the whole point of bodily autonomy: the right to say "no". The right to stop mid-stream, as it were. And the right to have that "no" respected. Rape isn't always violent, and I challenge your assumptions regarding traumatic rape vs not. Rape kits are required for rapes, regardless of physical trauma signs, precisely to determine of non-obvious trauma did happen. I've heard horror stories about vaginal walls and interior anal tearing, on what otherwise would have appeared to be someone who hadn't even had a bruise. Yet internally, the kit proved rape happened.

Here's an article addressing the conundrum. I'll see if I can dig up the study it mentioned which reviewed judiciary attitudes.

My kids have been instructed to not have sex (when they're older) with anyone they see or know has consumed more than two drinks. If they themselves have had more than two, they're instructed to not have sex. We teach kids that buzzed driving is drunk driving (per the PSA released in the US last year), so why not teach them that buzzed sex is out of the question all the way around? All this "concern" surrounding how drunk is too drunk can be easily handled: don't f**k anyone who even says they have a buzz. Common sense would tell most people that.

It's been interesting to read the hetero-normative assumptions that only girls get so drunk they can't consent. Aside from the Penn state references, not one person has said a whole lot about the idea that boys and men have these experiences as well. Statistically, they're less likely than women to even report rape in the first place, much less if they were drunk. Assuming that men are vilified is off-base, methinks.

Edited to add this study I found. Pay special attention to introduction pages xiv-xx. it highlights essentially (my paraphrasing) that when victims are drunk and then raped or assaulted, they're less likely to report it at all, or to seek therapy. The predator has less work to do by targeting someone who is already incapacitated. It's heart-breaking.


----------



## JCD

Tikikeen,

Here is the thing: What is proposed here by FW and AA is NOT the current legal standard. 

The current legal standard to the question of 'was she too drunk to give consent' is 'it depends' at least according to that one citation. People who know the law, justice and human biology realize that this is a complex question which can be used to create unfair legal results.

Unlike AA and FW, they seem to care a whit for if that sort of result might have pretty horrifying legal results for guys. For those two, it isn't even on their radar. They are FRAs.

This isn't about body autonomy. No one has suggested this is up for debate.

It isn't about pretty direct sets of rape. If a guy is having sex with a woman who isn't conscious or responding, that is pretty clearly rape as stated by myself, Larry and a bunch of other men here.

So despite the despicable diversion attempts by Always Alone and Faithful Wife to characterize QUESTIONS about the equity of their standard to mean 'men are trying to make sure they have legal protection to pork unconscious women', this isn't what it is about at all.

This is about 'buyer's remorse'. It is about a woman giving consent...and then withdrawing it AFTER the sex.

A man goes out with a girl. She orders a bottle of wine. They see a show and have a ****tail during intermission. He invites her to his place 'for a drink' (and NO, this isn't about some POS putting GHB in a woman's drink. That is rape)

He kisses her. She kisses back. Hijinks ensue including her _pulling his pants down and putting his penis in her mouth unsolicitedly._

This guy is acting in a good faith manner.

But...she wakes up and puts him in the 'I shouldn't have done that' category of relationships. Everyone has a couple of partners/ONS where this is true.

MATURE people say 'I made a mistake. I will slink home and try to forget this ever happened.' GUYS do that.

Others...do not.

So here is FW's flow chart.

"Did you have sex with Beth?" "Yes."

"Did she have drinks on your date?" "Yes."

"She says she wasn't into it. You are a rapist."

"But SHE was attacking ME!"

"Doesn't matter. You, male member of the species who also drank, are the solely responsible person in this interaction. You knew she had a drink. You are a rapist."

Now, if she could deign to clarify at how this is unfair to what she is saying, I would gladly discuss it.


----------



## MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut

JCD said:


> This is about 'buyer's remorse'. It is about a woman giving consent...and then withdrawing it AFTER the sex.


No. This thread is not about that at all. If you want to debate that subject I believe there is already a thread made about it, or perhaps you can start your own.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Tikikeen,
> 
> Here is the thing: What is proposed here by FW and AA is NOT the current legal standard.
> 
> The current legal standard to the question of 'was she too drunk to give consent' is 'it depends' at least according to that one citation. People who know the law, justice and human biology realize that this is a complex question which can be used to create unfair legal results.


You are talking out both sides of your mouth. What I was defending is the current legal standard, which is pretty clearly too drunk to consent. 

You are the one coming in here and insisting this legal standard is about punishing men for "buyer's remorse".

And the facts pretty clearly show that despite your endless concern over it, this situation is quite rare and usually outed during the investigation, long before the case goes to trial.

Going through a rape investigation is so endlessly humiliating that, for the most part, women will only go through it for extreme cases. And even then, they are likely to avoid it.

Not sure why you are so invested in painting women as immature sots determined to charge men with rape at every turn. I mean, really?


----------



## Faithful Wife

JCD...You can make up sh*t you think I said all day....yet you have not once even tried to actually understand what I really DO mean or what I believe.

You would prefer to to just believe I'm a man hater on some rant.

Fine with me, but your pre-determined belief about me does not create the truth of what I really think or what I'm saying.

So go on and keep spouting out crap you made up.

Still doesn't change my real thoughts or beliefs. It makes no difference anyway because the people like you who just want to see me in that light are going to see it that way no matter what.

The people who actually understand what I'm saying and haven't already painted me into a box can actually hear me and are open minded.

This next statement is a general statement and not directed at JCD who can't "hear" me:

If a person, male or female, is afraid of being charged with false rape charges, why on earth would that person go forward and have intoxicated sex with a stranger? It would be in their own best interest not to. Not having intoxicated sex (in those situations where consent could be questioned) would protect both parties.

For myself?

I love to play rape. My husband and I play it all the time. On another thread I explained a fun way my husband and I play consensual date rape, is when he gives me an ambien, then has sex with me while I'm drugged. Then he sometimes takes pictures, since I am not awake to know about all the fun!

We also play other versions of this game while drunk, but not as fun because I tend to get pukey with too much alcohol.

You see, CONSENT makes anything and everything possible. This is what the kink community has figured out that they can teach others. The kink consent community is full of people who have very complicated, sometimes dangerous sex...yet they don't have the false rape charges and rape problems that the general community have. They have stuff to teach us. If we listen up, we can use these things to our advantage, not disadvantage.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Feminist Activists Are Selling A New Line Of 'Consent Condoms' To Tackle Rape Culture | ThinkProgress


----------



## Faithful Wife

This was an excellent Dr. Nerdlove article, not about consent but definitely related to rape culture and how attitudes need to change:

Ending Sexual Harassment In Geek Culture - Paging Dr. NerdLove


----------



## Faithful Wife

Rape Culture Is Real - TIME

In response to Kitchens’ piece, I started the hashtag #RapeCultureIsWhen on Twitter hoping that it would spark a public dialogue about rape culture and shift the conversation away from the myths that shame so many survivors into silence. This conversation is meant to be a tool to educate people about what rape culture is, how to spot it, and how to combat it. The hashtag immediately took off and trended nationally for hours on the strength of personal stories and advocates sharing information about victim blaming, bystander intervention, and healthy masculinity. The level of engagement is an illustration of how many people wanted to speak out about this issue many are too afraid to touch. The following statements are made up of contributions the #RapeCultureIsWhen hashtag as well as the myriad personal stories of survivors with the courage to speak out:

Rape culture is when women who come forward are questioned about what they were wearing.

Rape culture is when survivors who come forward are asked, “Were you drinking?”

Rape culture is when people say, “she was asking for it.”

Rape culture is when we teach women how to not get raped, instead of teaching men not to rape.

Rape culture is when the lyrics of Robin Thicke’s ‘Blurred Lines’ mirror the words of actual rapists and is still the number one song in the country.

Rape culture is when the mainstream media mourns the end of the convicted Steubenville rapists’ football careers and does not mention the young girl who was victimized.

Rape culture is when cyberbullies take pictures of sexual assaults and harass their victims online after the fact, which in the cases of Audrie Pott and Rehtaeh Parsons tragically ended in their suicides.

Rape culture is when, in 31 states, rapists can legally sue for child custody if the rape results in pregnancy.

Rape culture is when college campus advisers tasked with supporting the student body, shame survivors who report their rapes. (Annie Clark, a campus activist, says an administrator at the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill told her when she reported her rape, “Well… Rape is like football, if you look back on the game, and you’re the quarterback, Annie… is there anything you would have done differently?”)

Rape culture is when colleges are more concerned with getting sued by assailants than in supporting survivors. (Or at Occidental College, where students and administrators who advocated for survivors were terrorized for speaking out against the school’s insufficient reporting procedures.)


----------



## JCD

always_alone said:


> You are talking out both sides of your mouth. What I was defending is the current legal standard, which is pretty clearly too drunk to consent.
> 
> You are the one coming in here and insisting this legal standard is about punishing men for "buyer's remorse".
> 
> And the facts pretty clearly show that despite your endless concern over it, this situation is quite rare and usually outed during the investigation, long before the case goes to trial.
> 
> Going through a rape investigation is so endlessly humiliating that, for the most part, women will only go through it for extreme cases. And even then, they are likely to avoid it.
> 
> Not sure why you are so invested in painting women as immature sots determined to charge men with rape at every turn. I mean, really?


Since you had the...audacity to accuse me of wanting to defend the rape of drunken women, obviously you aren't understanding my points. This is the generous take. The other is that you refuse to understand them, but let's fall on the side of generosity.

Point One: You support current law and therefore NOT what FW is proposing. My apologies for making that mistake.

Current law as I understand it, is that the prosecutor and investigator will ask some serious questions. A woman who sips a glass of wine with dinner accusing a man of rape due to drunkeness for whatever motives she has would be dismissed as someone with an agenda. Because this is a very serious accusation which will ruin the guy's life forever.

FW seems to feel that any amount of drunkenness, not just 'passed out on the sofa' means the man is ipso facto a rapist. She has been given all the scope she can to clarify her statements or walk back. She has not.

I do not care if it only happens once in ten thousand times. If you make the law so there is NO DEFENSE, I am against it.


Point Two: Buzz Kill.

Women play 'The Game'. They want to be chased. They want to be coy about whether they will or will not bestow their favors. They want to set up hoops for men to jump through in the endless dance of love and sex.

They also like romance, and romance includes a certain amount of drinking wine, champagne etc.

Now, having enacted a standard where men are presumed guilty if a woman has some drinks, a man who belongs to this 'consent culture' might as well fold up his tent and go home once she takes that first sip of wine. Because one can't get consent after that.

This law makes the 'Game' a lot less interesting. To paraphrase that one pundit 'Give women the consent culture. They won't like it.' Because now they will be responsible for their VERY LOUD AND CLEAR sexual signals. No coy hair flips hoping he'll go in for that kiss.

Not that I think REAL people will actually buy into this. But agenda people will use it to make hay.

and Point Three:

WHERE will this law mostly be misused? Well, where stupid boys and girls get together, drink a lot and there are a lot of agenda driven philosophical types with almost no real world experience: College.

That is a lot of boys being destroyed even if they act fairly and equitably. He has something to drink. She has something to drink. She says yes...but she still has enough farm girl to regret doing it and some toxic agenda people in her life who decide she needs to 'make an example of him' out of what is, in some ways her own mistake.

See, I DO treat women as responsible. If you can monitor your drinking so you can drive, you can certainly monitor your drinking so you can fvck. Most women I know do that. What do you do?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Again JCD...I don't need to defend any of my statement against YOU who just won't read it correctly anyway.

Keep saying it over and over blah blah blah "FW thinks this and that"...

And I'll just keep repeating over and over...you have me wrong and I don't give a crap what you think.

I will keep posting some articles by many sources that support what I really think and you can keep just pretending you know what I think, no problem. 

You don't know what I think though, for the record.

blah blah blah....


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> JCD...You can make up sh*t you think I said all day....yet you have not once even tried to actually understand what I really DO mean or what I believe.
> 
> You would prefer to to just believe I'm a man hater on some rant.
> 
> Fine with me, but your pre-determined belief about me does not create the truth of what I really think or what I'm saying.
> 
> So go on and keep spouting out crap you made up.
> 
> Still doesn't change my real thoughts or beliefs. It makes no difference anyway because the people like you who just want to see me in that light are going to see it that way no matter what.
> 
> The people who actually understand what I'm saying and haven't already painted me into a box can actually hear me and are open minded.
> 
> This next statement is a general statement and not directed at JCD who can't "hear" me:
> 
> If a person, male or female, is afraid of being charged with false rape charges, why on earth would that person go forward and have intoxicated sex with a stranger? It would be in their own best interest not to. Not having intoxicated sex (in those situations where consent could be questioned) would protect both parties.
> 
> For myself?
> 
> I love to play rape. My husband and I play it all the time. On another thread I explained a fun way my husband and I play consensual date rape, is when he gives me an ambien, then has sex with me while I'm drugged. Then he sometimes takes pictures, since I am not awake to know about all the fun!
> 
> We also play other versions of this game while drunk, but not as fun because I tend to get pukey with too much alcohol.
> 
> You see, CONSENT makes anything and everything possible. This is what the kink community has figured out that they can teach others. The kink consent community is full of people who have very complicated, sometimes dangerous sex...yet they don't have the false rape charges and rape problems that the general community have. They have stuff to teach us. If we listen up, we can use these things to our advantage, not disadvantage.


Fine. 

CLARIFY.

Answer these simple questions.

Does alcohol remove the ability of a woman to give consent? In what quantities?

If women are not responsible for their statements and actions while drunk (you stated a woman can't give 'true consent' when drinking) does this equally apply to a man?

If a man is drunk and has sex with another woman, does that mean his GF/Wife is not allowed to be mad because he was obviously unable to give consent and 'raped'?

Here's the deal. I read your exchange with Larry. He asked you a simple question and you went straight to sarcasm and passive aggressive without answering a damned thing. You threw out a few non sequiturs.

Now, if I write something and am misunderstood, *it is on me to clarify, not the reader*

This applies to you too.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Again dude...DO YOU THINK I GIVE A CRAP IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ME???

Nope.


----------



## Faithful Wife

JCD said:


> See, I DO treat women as responsible. If you can monitor your drinking so you can drive, you can certainly monitor your drinking so you can fvck. Most women I know do that. What do you do?


The problem here is that if a driver is ALREADY DRUNK, they will fully believe they are capable of driving, and a friend would take their keys away. Once you are intoxicated, you can no longer make the decision to drive in an INFORMED way.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> You see, CONSENT makes anything and everything possible. This is what the kink community has figured out that they can teach others. The kink consent community is full of people who have very complicated, sometimes dangerous sex...yet they don't have the false rape charges and rape problems that the general community have. They have stuff to teach us. If we listen up, we can use these things to our advantage, not disadvantage.


I don't know anything about the consent community, so this is probably just a vague tangent that's not relevant to it at all.

I have noticed that writers of erotic fiction sometimes express notions that are on the wrong side of the law. The idea of a binding contract between the fictional characters Christian Grey and Ana Steele is a good example.


----------



## JCD

Faithful Wife said:


> Again dude...DO YOU THINK I GIVE A CRAP IF YOU DON'T UNDERSTAND ME???
> 
> Nope.


Obviously you are having that problem with a lot of people. I'm nowhere NEAR the first person you've had this conversation with.

You say something. Larry asks for clarification. You refuse. He asks again, you refuse. I make points based on what you say, offering to be corrected if I get something wrong...and you accuse him of wanting to rape drunken women. Me you just flat out dismiss as unworthy of communication

Huh.

Yeah...it's ALL us. No hair trigger on you at all.


----------



## Faithful Wife

JCD, you and maybe 3 other guys get on my case for stuff....yet dozens of people are friends with me here on and off line. You can go ahead and worry about yourself and who likes you, ok? I'm well liked even if you don't like me. (Something I'm happy about because I certainly would not be friends with someone who went on so long about this topic).


----------



## Faithful Wife

ocotillo said:


> I don't know anything about the consent community, so this is probably just a vague tangent that's not relevant to it at all.
> 
> I have noticed that writers of erotic fiction sometimes express notions that are on the wrong side of the law. The idea of a binding contract between the fictional characters Christian Grey and Ana Steele is a good example.


Fiction, ocotillo. You know, like porn is fiction? It should not be confusing. There is violent rape porn that men watch defend the existence of all the time.

Also like I said, yes, some of us like to play rape scenes in our real sex life. All you do is get enthusiastic consent before you set up the scene. Easy.

In my own sex life, we have a very complicated contract with rules and punishment and all kinds of other freaky stuff. But that has nothing to do with consent between strangers on a first date.


----------



## Racer

TikiKeen said:


> JCD, you seem to have little grasp of the complexity of reporting and investigating a rape case.


And the counter from the guy's perspective (and experience through a friend). The police show at your door. Handcuffed, read your rights. You are processed; A lovely several hour thing before you are told what you are being charged with. Then you are in a holding cell; Luckily,in a upscale area you get your own cell. If you are unlucky, you will be shipped to the county jail and be placed in cells with other men accused of felonies and in a surly mood. 72 hours: That's how long they have to put you in front of a judge who decides if you can be released, if there's a bond, or if you have to stay in jail until the court date if you are an adult.

Your personal life; school, job, or whatever goes on hold. You have to ask somebody to tell them why you didn't show up. Someone has to tell all those people who notice you are missing; your parents, siblings, friends, etc. Your attorney will charge $5k minimum; it will probably be $20k by the time the charges are dropped. 

And all this without one shred of physical evidence yet or the police following up on your side, talking to your friends you were with, or, in my friend's case, a whole tape of recorded conversations where she threatens to do this to him if he doesn't go back to her. They are working for the accuser. And she is walking free... And productive; Like going to your apartment and cleaning you out because she's really pissed you broke up with her... Oh, and putting down your dog you got together. And the police attitude about that? "Hell hath no fury..." it's the female version of "boys will be boys"...

So while I do feel for those of you who've gone through rape... My own personal experiences and those of my friends (men), have been one where it's a weapon women use to wreck us. None of my friends or me have raped anyone... but we've all been treated as rapist at some point in our lives and heard various women use it as an excuse to explain away some real horrid behaviors like it should absolve them.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Racer, I'm all for tightening up all loose ends that lead to problems like false rape charges. And I'm all for specific charges against men or women who make false charges. Racer, I've never known any woman who would deliberately make those charges, and I've never known any man who is a rapist...the changes I'd like to see in our culture have to do with educating everyone about sex and consent, and taking away the double edged sword of both rape and false accusations. I don't doubt your story one bit and I know it isn't fair. I also know that you don't condone rape. I want everyone to be safe and change the overall thinking about sex and consent...with enough education, this can change.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Fiction, ocotillo. You know, like porn is fiction? It should not be confusing.


It shouldn't be confusing, I agree. Nevertheless, there is still a persistent layman's misconception that if you draw up an agreement in writing and the other person signs it, then it's legal and enforceable. And that's not universally true. Basic human rights can't be negotiated away by private agreement. 

To add a little humor here and plagiarize a movie line: 

"Tell me Karl, have you ever heard of the term, 'Involuntary servitude?'"

"No"

"Unconscionable contract?"

"Nope"

"Great! Sign here..."​


----------



## Csquare

Since I can see things squarely, I say we can avoid all confusion and mucky aftermath of drunken non-legally binding consensual sex by making it a misdemeanor for anyone having sex outside marriage. Punishable by writing 1000 times on school smart boards: "I do not take responsibility for what I do not know what I am not sure I want what I am doing."

Girls have been warned since 6th grade that if they drink too much at a party - and plaster themselves to some willing guy - they can find themselves having sex. I know several young women who found themselves exactly in this scenario, told their parents, refused to press charges,......and (one of them) later became Facebook friends with her attacker.

Too often, women want attention and ego-stroking from men, get drunk to lower inhibitions, encourage the advances of some guy, and then later regret what happens. Realize they wouldn't have been having sex with the guy if they'd been stone sober. So, is that now rape?

To be fair, what are these men thinking getting involved with women with such lax boundaries. I would warn my 2 boys, stay the heck away from capricious, needy girls. The brief "pleasure" of sex with a drunk girl could not possibly be worth the bitter aftermath of remorse - either his or hers.

Some girls call the morning after "the walk of shame", others call it "rape."


----------



## Faithful Wife

ocotillo said:


> It shouldn't be confusing, I agree. Nevertheless, there is still a persistent layman's misconception that if you draw up an agreement in writing and the other person signs it, then it's legal and enforceable. And that's not universally true. Basic human rights can't be negotiated away by private agreement.
> 
> To add a little humor here and plagiarize a movie line:
> 
> "Tell me Karl, have you ever heard of the term, 'Involuntary servitude?'"
> 
> "No"
> 
> "Unconscionable contract?"
> 
> "Nope"
> 
> "Great! Sign here..."​


Ocotillo...I'm not really sure what you are meaning or getting at? I am sorry I missed it but would be happy to discuss with you further.


----------



## ocotillo

Faithful Wife said:


> Ocotillo...I'm not really sure what you are meaning or getting at? I am sorry I missed it but would be happy to discuss with you further.


I'm ignorant here and don't really know anything about the consent community at all. So I might be completely off the reservation and on an unrelated tangent. 

My only observation is that based on what I've read in fiction, authors honestly don't seem to understand what you can and can't ask somebody else to formally agree to. 

I don't know if ideas people pick up from fiction could translate into real life or not, but it seems like the possibility is there. 

Another thing I might be misunderstanding (Some days I swear I must be on the Aspergers spectrum...) is whether formal agreements (Like in Fifty Shades) are intended to have any legal standing at all or whether they're just another prop in the erotic scenario. 

As always, FW, this is intended as polite patio conversation, not argument.


----------



## Racer

Faithful Wife said:


> Racer, I'm all for tightening up all loose ends that lead to problems like false rape charges. And I'm all for specific charges against men or women who make false charges. ...


Ya.. well... It does play into those statistics. The way they are even presented.


MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut said:


> (Source: Statistics | RAINN | Rape, Abuse and Incest National Network)
> 
> 
> 
> Out of every 100 rapes:
> 
> 40 get reported to police
> 10 lead to an arrest
> 8 get prosecuted
> 4 lead to a felony conviction
> 3 rapists will spend even a single day in prison
> The other 97 will walk free..


Notice that it doesn’t at all say or give the idea that 30 men might have at all been falsely accused, hence no arrest. Or that out of the 10 that were charged, all but three had the charges dropped because the courts decided it was not a rape.

Basically, another way to see those statistics from the complete opposite perspective would be 97 out of 100 accusations of rape are false.

I don’t think that’s true either….


----------



## Faithful Wife

ocotillo said:


> I'm ignorant here and don't really know anything about the consent community at all. So I might be completely off the reservation and on an unrelated tangent.
> 
> My only observation is that based on what I've read in fiction, authors honestly don't seem to understand what you can and can't ask somebody else to formally agree to.
> 
> I don't know if ideas people pick up from fiction could translate into real life or not, but it seems like the possibility is there.
> 
> Another thing I might be misunderstanding (Some days I swear I must be on the Aspergers spectrum...) is whether formal agreements (Like in Fifty Shades) are intended to have any legal standing at all or whether they're just another prop in the erotic scenario.
> 
> As always, FW, this is intended as polite patio conversation, not argument.


You have always been polite to me Ocotillo...and I thank you for that.

I actually don't read any sex fiction, so I don't know how to answer.

There is a lot of real info by real kinksters who use their own types of verbal and written agreements for various uses.

And I've read a lot of that and there are not people popping in here and there to ask about false rape reports...the impression is that it doesn't happen in the kink community *because* they understand what consent really is and they will *always* forego any sex that could be confused as having been non-consensual. 

So what happens in the real kink community versus what happens in fiction is something I really don't know anything about so I can't really offer anything to that.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Racer said:


> Ya.. well... It does play into those statistics. The way they are even presented.
> 
> Notice that it doesn’t at all say or give the idea that 30 men might have at all been falsely accused, hence no arrest. Or that out of the 10 that were charged, all but three had the charges dropped because the courts decided it was not a rape.
> 
> Basically, another way to see those statistics from the complete opposite perspective would be 97 out of 100 accusations of rape are false.
> 
> I don’t think that’s true either….


Racer, I didn't post that link, and have never really said one way or another what I think of any of those statistics. 

I know that rape exists and false rape charges exist. That's all I know.

I'm for sober, informed, enthusiastic consent in all cases. Once consent has been established, all things are possible.


----------



## Racer

Faithful Wife said:


> Racer, I didn't post that link, and have never really said one way or another what I think of any of those statistics.
> 
> I know that rape exists and false rape charges exist. That's all I know.
> 
> I'm for sober, informed, enthusiastic consent in all cases. Once consent has been established, all things are possible.


I do understand that. It's just it feeds into that "snails and puppy dog tails" image of men when it comes to this particular subject. 

Even if it's half wrong, that still means more often than not, women are falsely accusing men. It's a reality of it all that most are not willing to face or admit happens. And the ramifications to the man falsely accused are much more severe than the woman doing this. I do have to admit though, it's better to play it safe than let a real rapist go. So there's no 'lovely' answer to this problem.

But what is never really discussed is what happens to those men accused of this. Men lose jobs, fail out of school, etc. simply because it is a highly emotional charge. A rape victim can find support: My own wife for instance used it to get that 'poor me' thing from her friends and a bashing of me, the BH, for not understanding or forgiving her for 'being raped' and 'getting over it already' that she had sex with another. 

A 'rapist' regardless of whether or not it's proven, has a stigma once it goes public. 

And it goes beyond even that. Even me, gets stuck with a 'insensitive arse' stigma for not treating my WW like she was a victim in this. The 'rape card' becomes a 'get out jail free' card.... 

I've heard her friends tell her I should have been there protecting her. (I wasn't invited to that party). I should forgive her and be 'emotionally supportive' that happened. But I don't. I'm a arse for actually believing the facts and seeing a hundred other possible outcomes 'if only' she'd have made another choice. Where's my support? There's none for that... only for the infidelity. But if it's a rape? Doesn't that change the advice I'd get? I'm suddenly a "secondary survivor" who has to change to help her through this trauma. Can you imagine how her IC and our MC started treating me when my WW revealed that it was a rape? At that point I become the bad guy persecuting her for something that wasn't her fault....

"Luckily" for me, there are plenty of other stories to paint a picture of an adulterous wife where this isn't my only reliance to show she's not a victim. It also helped to prove she also had sex with her 'rapist' a second time and emails back and forth setting it up. Even then, her parrot IC acted like it was some form of Stockholm syndrome where she needed it to be different.

So... This subject is really nasty for me. I've been ripped apart by it. And I still don't see this latest as a rape and it severely bothers me how others can drop it down to 'drunk' being 'rape'. If that were the case, I guess all of us BH's here should just forgive our WW's for having sex with other men because 9/10 times there was probably a drink or two involved. How insensitive of us for persecuting these victims.... Go ahead and join in BW's because your husband didn't really cheat; he just had beer goggles on and was raped by a predatory woman (like my WW). A revolving door where no one is responsible for their circumstances or actions that culminated in sex they weren't supposed to have.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Racer...I know you have personal dealings with this, and hopefully you realize I have never and would never doubt your own experiences or how they affected you. I'm sorry for both sides of the suckage you have experienced.

As I mentioned briefly, one of my kids was raped.

So I have some personal feelings about this topic, too.

But I know that you and I are not "against" each other. We aren't opposing each other. I'm sorry any of us have to deal with any side of this issue.


----------



## always_alone

JCD said:


> Since you had the...audacity to accuse me of wanting to defend the rape of drunken women, obviously you aren't understanding my points. This is the generous take. The other is that you refuse to understand them, but let's fall on the side of generosity.


And what I've been trying to say, repeatedly I might add, is that no one is suggesting that we rewrite laws so that an especially vindictive girl can have a boy thrown in jail because she regrets having sex with him. This is what *you* are bringing to the table.

The analogy with driving simply doesn't work. Driving drunk *is* a criminal offense, one where it would make zero sense to say that drunkenness mitigates responsibility.

Being raped is *not* a criminal offense; we are talking about victims here, and whether or not they consented. Thus, consent in this case isn't about whether the victim is responsible; it's about whether the perpetrator committed a crime.

Again, I get what you are saying, but the scenario you are painting is largely fiction -- and I fail to see why the victims of rape should be held to a higher standard of accountability and credibility than the perpetrators.


----------



## Racer

Faithful Wife said:


> But I know that you and I are not "against" each other. We aren't opposing each other. I'm sorry any of us have to deal with any side of this issue.


FW... It's one of the reasons I don't think we really battle each other. While we do disagree often enough, we at least respect why each other might think they way they do and accept this. But we each think we're right; It's perfectly fine because we are different.

The troubling part with rape is how wide that line in the sand is where people define it and how they handle that trauma as a society. On an individual level, it's probably a nice tight line between 'right and wrong'. Nobody thinks the same, particularly between men and women on sexuality and sexual issues. Vastly different personal experiences that, although society is trying for gender neutrality, has failed entirely to 'beige out' sex difference between men and women and how sex/courting works.

Surely even you have to admit that in general, men pursue and women generally seduce (draw men in). Just given that, the whole sexual experience from the two different perspectives is going to be vastly different. And we've had our lives filled with these and learned completely different lessons (and several of the same ones too).. So, you've probably not had the experience of trying to ask a girl out on a date, and her using her knowledge that so and so says you date raped her as part of why the hell she'd never go out with you and quite loudly tells you (so now even more know this information).... I've had that experience. Worse is that you can't defend; That's what they expect a rapist would do. So, welcome to my senior year in HS and 3rd year in college (where at least it didn't spread as far). That is going to affect how I perceive all this vastly different than you will. 

In my case. It isn't even having sex with them. They believed I did something.... that's all it takes. A guy, alone in a room with a drunk girl who was sober enough to get herself out of her clothes rapidly enough. The college one wasn't even a girlfriend, just a friend I helped stagger home who wanted to be 'more than friends' with me then changed her mind when she decided I must have taken advantage of her (or maybe vague recollections of my rebuffing her drunkenly throwing herself at me and how scared I was?)... Slugs and snails and puppy dog tails. It simply comes down to "why didn't I?" and them not being able to find that reason because 'all men would'.... it's how it works in their heads. To believe I did nothing was like getting them to believe unicorns really exist.

So, I've never done a thing wrong. And yet, have story after story. It's hard to even be a boyscout and avoid this issue when women don't really want to believe that most guys actually would do the right thing; They believe us to be villians in nature because that is what they hear all the time.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But Racer, I don't think anything you've said is against anything I've said. You are in your own hell for a lot of reasons, the ghosts of that sh*t that happened to you is a big part of it.

I will not detail the hell I have been through, I simply can't bear to.

In the end, I do not think we disagree about anything. The false accusations against you SHOULD be a criminal offense, and I have never said otherwise about you or any other false charges.

I hope it doesn't seem to you that my message is "men are villains" because that's not how I feel or think. Nor do I think you are exaggerating or trying to deflect or anything like that. I think a voice like yours should be included in the discussion of "how do we fix this crap?"


----------



## always_alone

Racer said:


> Even if it's half wrong, that still means more often than not, women are falsely accusing men.


I can see why you object to the presentation of those particular statistics, but this conclusion that you've drawn here is patently false. Over 90% of accusations are legit. Probably 98%, according to best research. And there are still many rapes that go unreported.

False accusations are horrible, and people making them should be held accountable for it. But in raw numbers, they are a much smaller problem than rapists getting off scott free. (and just to be clear, I'm not saying this to belittle your experience, because I agree with FW that it properly belongs in this discussion. I'm saying it because there is a widespread and ongoing myth that women are just making this stuff up, and that they are the ones to blame for rape.)

Also, just because a defendant is acquitted, it doesn't mean that person was innocent. When I was raped, I was told I must've been in that "false accusation" category, but I can assure you I wasn't. 

I was raked over the coals about what I was wearing (ordinary, conservative blouse and jeans, not that it matter), what my sexual experience was (minimal, not that it matters), what risky behaviour I was doing (accepting a ride home from someone, not that it matters), how much I had to drink (nothing, not that it matters), whether there had been a blanket, a picnic, or other "signs of consent" (none, except his word that I asked for it), and number and location of bruises (all over my neck and thighs). Also, it was deemed problematic that I had memorized his license plate number (clearly not hysterical enough or a probable "sign of consent"), and that my clothing wasn't suitably ripped (another "sign of consent").

In the end it was his word against mine, and he was considered the more credible.


----------



## larry.gray

Faithful Wife said:


> The problem here is that if a driver is ALREADY DRUNK, they will fully believe they are capable of driving, and a friend would take their keys away. Once you are intoxicated, you can no longer make the decision to drive in an INFORMED way.


The law won't let you use that excuse.

If you get behind the wheel drunk, drive and get caught, you will be prosecuted. If you try the line "but I was drunk, I didn't know what I was doing" they will laugh at you and keep right on prosecuting. The law *expects* you to know you're too drunk to drive, no matter how drunk you are.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Larry since your point has nothing to do with my point, I'll just ignore it. If you actually wanted to discuss this with me, we could...it is obvious you do not.


----------



## larry.gray

Faithful Wife said:


> I hope it doesn't seem to you that my message is "men are villains" because that's not how I feel or think. Nor do I think you are exaggerating or trying to deflect or anything like that. I think a voice like yours should be included in the discussion of "how do we fix this crap?"


Then you need to readjust you approach to the subject because you're coming through loud and clear with exactly that - you sound like a man hater. 

You can look through my posts and I'm not one of the misogynists that stereotypes 'all women' and blames them for societies ills. Based on your track record, I'm going to be accused of "stalking you" and following you around the forum to "look for places to attack you."


----------



## Faithful Wife

Do you read all of my posts, Larry?

If not, then how would you know if someone is stalking me or not? If you don't read all of my posts to see who pulls in behind me and what they are saying, then how would you know?

But yeah just assume I'm crazy and accuse SO MANY people of doing that, even though I have not "accused" anyone, I have called out exactly TWO people who really are doing that to me...what do you think the chances are of at least one of those TWO people "liking" your post above? I'll guess 100%. If you don't know the circumstances, why would you automatically assume I'm wrong on what I CALLED OUT to those TWO posters? Did you not bother to notice that several people agreed with me because those same TWO posters have done the same thing to others that they have done to me?

Larry, I honestly don't give a sh*t what people think of me here. Have you not noticed that yet?

I have no need or reason to readjust my approach. I'll say what I want and if anyone disagrees, why would I give a crap?


----------



## Created2Write

JCD said:


> We aren't talking about police methodology. We are talking about a proposed legal standard of intoxication and consent put forth by FW which have some pretty horrible consequences.
> 
> And we aren't talking about obvious cases. Some girl who willingly goes in for a clock exam and a rape kit is a pretty credible witness considering how traumatic that is.
> 
> Instead, we are looking at the inequity being asserted here.
> 
> A 'drunk girl' can say yes...and not mean it. She doesn't even need to know she is drunk. She can scream 'take me to bed or lose me forever' to a guy in front of witnesses and yet FW is asserting it is still technically and legally rape because we can't KNOW if she gave consent.
> 
> Huh.
> 
> Somehow, the woman is expected to monitor her alcohol intake to drive a vehicle, but is not expected to monitor her alcohol to ride the 'hot' Rod. She is let off the hook.
> 
> Taking exception to this isn't 'wanting to bang passed out drunken girls'. It is highlighting how abusive and inequitable this standard is and how it's a lousy precedent for a lot of other things.


I don't think this is being said. Personally, I think both the guy and the girl are required to not only consent before drinking, but also to regulate how much alcohol they consume so they don't act out of impaired judgment. I don't think a woman should drink so much that she can't make a clear, knowledgeable decision about sex. Nor should the guy drink so much that he doesn't realize what he's doing, either. 

What is being said, from my perspective anyway, is that they're _both_ responsible for looking out for themselves. If the guy wants to sleep around, he should do himself a favor and obtain consent from the woman _before_ she's intoxicated. And she absolutely shouldn't drink so much that she passes out, whether around strangers or friends. But to place all of the responsibility on her shoulders is attempting to shirk ones own responsibility for the sake of the "buzz". Cause, you know what really is a buzz killer? Jail.


----------



## TikiKeen

AA, that's horrible. Racer, your situation is too. Edited to add: i refuse to talk publicly about my rapes or my CSA. They happened, they adversely affect me even today, and no one will ever take those experiences away from me. I do know that the good men in my life are an essential part of my current support network, and were as I coped with the immediate aftermath of rape.

I know one women whose rape story I absolutely do not believe. That's one out of more than 40 women I have met whose stories I do believe. Stats on false rape report place false reports at about the same, as noted in this discussion primer from a conference in Idaho a few years ago. It's a good read, addressing many of the semantics being argued here: "false allegations" vs "unfounded", how to properly, officially and systemically define those words, and what can be done to facilitate accurate investigations and prosecutions.

I was going to address the "Buzz Kill" diatribe from earlier, then realized I can never get back the time I'd spend typing and trying to convince anyone that facts really do differ from the opinions stated. Suffice it to say that the FBI still considers it rape when anyone has agreed to sex and changes his or her mind and chooses not to, period. (Dig until you find the example used here; this is a primer for LEO's, teaching how to meet the new-in-2011 FBI reporting guidelines.)

Facts are facts are facts. At this point I'm waiting to hear how reporting methods are really just a big giant government conspiracy to keep all men down or something. 

The reality is that rapists are not "men" or "ladies": they are nothing but predators.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Yep, tiki. Women rape too, and it is under reported. But men also rape men...this is widely under reported as well. ALL RAPE should be reported. That implies an actual RAPE, not a false allegation.


----------



## MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut

The gender of the offenders is not mentioned in the stats. If it is I didn't see it. 

@Racer, your conclusion from the stats is a funny one because you forgot to count the _*60 *unreported rapes_ out of 100.


----------



## larry.gray

Which is it?


Faithful Wife said:


> I have no need or reason to readjust my approach. I'll say what I want and if anyone disagrees, why would I give a crap?





Faithful Wife said:


> I hope it doesn't seem to you that my message is "men are villains" because that's not how I feel or think.


----------



## larry.gray

TikiKeen said:


> Facts are facts are facts. At this point I'm waiting to hear how reporting methods are really just a big giant government conspiracy to keep all men down or something.
> 
> The reality is that rapists are not "men" or "ladies": they are nothing but predators.


They are horribly depressing facts too. The predators who do this get away with it FAR too much.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Larry, I care what RACER thinks. That's why I said "I hope it doesn't seem to YOU" not "I hope it doesn't seem to EVERYONE".

Nice try. Not sure why you care what I think or say at all?


----------



## nuclearnightmare

TikiKeen said:


> JCD, you seem to have little grasp of the complexity of reporting and investigating a rape case.
> 
> Were she to report it, under your "come on up to my place" scenario, she would have to (cogently and precisely) repeat her claim to no less than three people: initial investigator, two different medical staff at the hospital, and at least one officer. Should her case make it to court, she will then have to re-tell it, just as precisely, there, and be grilled about the details. Also, her sexual past might be called into question, as would her psychological status/any diagnoses, and her family dynamics.
> 
> At the hospital, she'll be examined as a "rape kit" is collected for physical evidence. In case you're fuzzy on the details, here's how that goes...


I think that prosecution of certain kinds of crimes will always be difficult in a free society (e.g. I consider the US to be a free society). And for good reason I think - the government should have to prove their case against me 'beyond reasonable doubt' before they take my freedom away as punishment. Any crime or offense that involves either inherent vagueness or inadequautely defined terms will create a situation where the benefit of the doubt continually leans in favor of the accussed. 

so for rape this presents a problem for law enfiorcement and the justice system over all, and I don't really know how this can be addressed. But I do think that it should not be addressed by curbing the fundamntal freedoms that every citizen has claim on.


----------



## larry.gray

Faithful Wife said:


> Larry, I care what RACER thinks. That's why I said "I hope it doesn't seem to YOU" not "I hope it doesn't seem to EVERYONE".
> 
> Nice try. Not sure why you care what I think or say at all?


Just responding to when you accused me of advocating things I do not advocate. It's rather dishonest.


----------



## Faithful Wife

So you mean the one liner snark I shot back at you, compared to the MANY snarky and insensitive things you have said to me on this thread...somehow you are oh so innocent of snark but I am "accusing you of things"....Larry, I get it. You don't like me.

How many more times do you want to tell me that?

What good do you think you are doing?

Even if you really think I'm "accusing you" of advocating things or whatever, do you think I'm running around telling people you are a jerk? Or what exactly harm do you think I am doing that you have to keep coming back and calling me out on something?

You have been rude and dismissive to me so many times.

And you actually expect me to be kind and patient to you, or what?

You think you are innocent and I'm the jerk?

FINE, go ahead and THINK THAT.

But why keep telling me about it?

DULY NOTED. You don't like me and think I am a man-hater. I accept that this is your assessment of me. What else do you want?


----------



## ocotillo

always_alone said:


> The analogy with driving simply doesn't work. Driving drunk *is* a criminal offense, one where it would make zero sense to say that drunkenness mitigates responsibility.
> 
> Being raped is *not* a criminal offense; we are talking about victims here, and whether or not they consented. Thus, consent in this case isn't about whether the victim is responsible; it's about whether the perpetrator committed a crime.


I mentioned driving too, but I wasn't trying to be offensive. 

The intended analogy was between the concepts of consent and culpability, because they both make assumptions about a person's mental capacity that are often worded very similarly. Sometimes the wording is virtually identical

It's probably not a great analogy, but the two concepts do go hand in hand sometimes. Minors can't give consent, but voluntary sex between two seventeen year old children is not usually considered rape either.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

For myself?

I love to play rape. My husband and I play it all the time. On another thread I explained a fun way my husband and I play consensual date rape, is when he gives me an ambien, then has sex with me while I'm drugged. Then he sometimes takes pictures, since I am not awake to know about all the fun!

We also play other versions of this game while drunk, but not as fun because I tend to get pukey with too much alcohol.

You see, CONSENT makes anything and everything possible. This is what the kink community has figured out that they can teach others. The kink consent community is full of people who have very complicated, sometimes dangerous sex...yet they don't have the false rape charges and rape problems that the general community have. They have stuff to teach us. If we listen up, we can use these things to our advantage, not disadvantage.[/QUOTE]

(caveat - as I write the following I am not disagreeing with anyone on this thread per se. I quote the above becuase I have some comments vis-a-vis the subject mentioned)

One thing different about rape discussions of today compared to 20-30 years ago is the idea that many women like to be "taken." That idea was out there in the 40s, 50s and 60s (e.g. watch movies from that era and notice how the hero and the heroine/leading actress initiate sex), but IMO it was heartily extinguished from public discourse by the 70s and 80s. I think the reason was that the concept seemed almost antitehtical (it isn't......but it comes to close to that for some) to the burgeoning rape awareness movement of that time. Now the idea that (some) women like to be "taken" is in the public discourse again.

I think TAM has probably addressed this issue somewhere. I'm curious on what that thinking is. I think of how important it is that young men and boys understand, in fact have a clear understanding of what constitutes rape. It is the expectation that an adult will process the subleties of life and act appropriately. I'm wondering though just how much more complicated such ideas make young male education on rape and sexual assault.


----------



## larry.gray

Faithful Wife said:


> So you mean the one liner snark I shot back at you, compared to the MANY snarky and insensitive things you have said to me on this thread...somehow you are oh so innocent of snark but I am "accusing you of things"....Larry, I get it. You don't like me.


You post got me to re-read, wondering why things went awry. I didn't have an issue with you before.

I see it is in the quoted post - that is the one you responded with snark to. I do agree with the sentiment of much of what the guy wrote. But in hindsight I see it is the word "insane" is what offended you. Had I wrote the words myself, I would have not used them because they are inflammatory and I try not to be. 

Peace.


----------



## larry.gray

nuclearnightmare said:


> One thing different about rape discussions of today compared to 20-30 years ago is the idea that many women like to be "taken." That idea was out there in the 40s, 50s and 60s (e.g. watch movies from that era and notice how the hero and the heroine/leading actress initiate sex), but IMO it was heartily extinguished from public discourse by the 70s and 80s. I think the reason was that the concept seemed almost antitehtical (it isn't......but it comes to close to that for some) to the burgeoning rape awareness movement of that time. Now the idea that (some) women like to be "taken" is in the public discourse again.


You're right, it is a foreign idea to many now. I'm no spring chicken, but I came of age on this side of the 'revolution' and I don't identify with any of it. 

In my youth I would have believed you, and I wouldn't associate with those that wouldn't.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Thank you for your post, Larry.


----------



## nuclearnightmare

Faithful Wife said:


> JCD...You can make up sh*t you think I said all day....yet you have not once even tried to actually understand what I really DO mean or what I believe.
> 
> You would prefer to to just believe I'm a man hater on some rant.
> 
> Fine with me, but your pre-determined belief about me does not create the truth of what I really think or what I'm saying.
> 
> So go on and keep spouting out crap you made up.
> 
> Still doesn't change my real thoughts or beliefs. It makes no difference anyway because the people like you who just want to see me in that light are going to see it that way no matter what.
> 
> The people who actually understand what I'm saying and haven't already painted me into a box can actually hear me and are open minded.
> 
> This next statement is a general statement and not directed at JCD who can't "hear" me:
> 
> If a person, male or female, is afraid of being charged with false rape charges, why on earth would that person go forward and have intoxicated sex with a stranger? It would be in their own best interest not to. Not having intoxicated sex (in those situations where consent could be questioned) would protect both parties.
> 
> For myself?
> 
> I love to play rape. My husband and I play it all the time. On another thread I explained a fun way my husband and I play consensual date rape, is when he gives me an ambien, then has sex with me while I'm drugged. Then he sometimes takes pictures, since I am not awake to know about all the fun!
> 
> We also play other versions of this game while drunk, but not as fun because I tend to get pukey with too much alcohol.
> 
> You see, CONSENT makes anything and everything possible. This is what the kink community has figured out that they can teach others. The kink consent community is full of people who have very complicated, sometimes dangerous sex...yet they don't have the false rape charges and rape problems that the general community have. They have stuff to teach us. If we listen up, we can use these things to our advantage, not disadvantage.


am going to do a brief threadjack....can we all agree that none of us want to draft a post of a certain length/complexity, only to have the website freeze up right after we hit the submit button?? --- resulting in losing tyhe entire post (unless there's some temp file somewhere). I suppose one could copy every post before it is sent......a bit of a pain if using a mobile device.

back on topic, there is a subtle but important diference between sexual fantasy and sexual reality - the latter being which fantasies one wants to take place outside one's head and under what circumstances. such sublties would be lost on a big percentage of yopung men and boys IMO. do you (any of you) think this creates confusion for the purposes of rape education and what is the solution?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Nuclear...it is definitely a difficult topic, for young men and women both. All I can say is the more education, the better. 

Sad article:

Read the Rapey Emails of American University's 'Secret Fraternity'


----------



## tacoma

larry.gray said:


> In that scenario where he is as intoxicated as she is, then she should be punished as much, right?
> 
> If not, why not?


You don't really think there's a single feminist in this thread who can answer this question honestly and still hold to her convictions do you?

:rofl:

No one is touching that Larry.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Even though I have said several times that if ANY rape occurs, it should be reported? And have said that women rape, too? I'm not sure why that keeps getting overlooked. I don't want any rapist protected, no woman or man who is a rapist should be protected! They should ALL be punished, but first it has to be reported. All rape should be reported.

So whatever scenario anyone wants to put out there, IF RAPE OCCURRED, then no matter what gender the rapist was, it should be reported and prosecuted.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Made To Penetrate: Female-on-Male Rape


----------



## Faithful Wife

Male Rape Survivors and Victim-Blaming -


----------



## Racer

Faithful Wife said:


> Nuclear...it is definitely a difficult topic, for young men and women both. All I can say is the more education, the better.


I’m curious what you see in there FW? 

The language?… Yesterday, playing computer games, my team “raped, ass f’d and mercilessly pounded the opposing team like a hot step-sister..” as described by one of our players. That’s how guys talk and bonus points for how crude or taboo you can go. It is offensive. Really offensive out of context or taken literally as how we perceive things. But ya… welcome to the locker room and our secret world of poking fun at some seriously jacked up things in the world. 

You forget men; We light our own farts on fire… just saying that sometimes, we don’t act with the intelligence or cunning you seem to think we have. It seems to baffle women when you get that accidental glimpse behind that curtain of cool repose and find us ass up with a lighter in our hand.


----------



## always_alone

tacoma said:


> You don't really think there's a single feminist in this thread who can answer this question honestly and still hold to her convictions do you?
> 
> :rofl:
> 
> No one is touching that Larry.


The problem with Larry's question is that it assumes that any time two people are drunk and having sex, it is rape.

Which is utterly ridiculous. It is not the drink that makes it rape, it's the lack of consent.

The reason why no one touched his post is because it made no sense, not because anyone here believes that rape of men is any less abhorrent.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Racer, I make rape jokes too, when I know it will not be misunderstood by anyone, and when it will be funny to the person I'm speaking with. That actually occurs a lot between my H and I.

But I wouldn't make those jokes on any format that could be copied and then used against me. The world is quickly changing to a place where whatever you say online (or in gaming, etc) can and will be used against you. So I'm making no judgement about who wants to make jokes or where they want to make them, I am simply saying that hey, if you (anyone) don't want to be taken wrong, then make sure you don't make statements that can be taken wrong.

In the article I posted, what I read were a bunch of dudes who don't know that lesson yet, and who can and will be called to the carpet for it because they were carelessly making rape statements in a public way.


----------



## always_alone

Those were some interesting links, FW. I had no idea that the rates for sexual violence against men were so high!

According to the CDC:
Approximately 3.2% of men have been raped (defined as penetration that is forced, attempted forced, or drug and alcohol facilitated.)

Nearly 1 in 5 men (22.2%) experienced sexual violence victimization other than rape during their lifetimes

6% of men have been victims of sexual coercion in their lifetimes

1 in 9 men report unwanted sexual contact.

www.cdc.gov/../nisvs_report2010-a.pdf


----------



## TikiKeen

Racer said:


> I’m curious what you see in there FW?
> 
> The language?… Yesterday, playing computer games, my team “raped, ass f’d and mercilessly pounded the opposing team like a hot step-sister..” as described by one of our players. That’s how guys talk and bonus points for how crude or taboo you can go. It is offensive. Really offensive out of context or taken literally as how we perceive things. But ya… welcome to the locker room and our secret world of poking fun at some seriously jacked up things in the world.
> 
> You forget men; We light our own farts on fire… just saying that sometimes, we don’t act with the intelligence or cunning you seem to think we have. It seems to baffle women when you get that accidental glimpse behind that curtain of cool repose and find us ass up with a lighter in our hand.


So boys will be boys, and it's only bad if keeping ye olde rape culture alive exists within "men's realms"? Hogwash. You're looking to excuse the very attitudes which eventually become prevalent and lead to acceptance of rape, encourage the questioning of whether rape was "real enough" and stigmatizes those who report it.

Another side note on suspects losing freedoms: If I were mistakenly a suspect in an armed robbery, I'd lose freedoms, too. I might even lose my job, and my kids would surely lose their mom for a while as the investigation went on while I was detained. If we let all suspected suspects roam free while investigations were conducted, law enforcement would come to a standstill.


----------



## always_alone

Racer said:


> I’m curious what you see in there FW?


I just read that link, and can't believe you have to ask that question. The attitude is utterly despicable, and exactly what we've been talking about in this thread about excusing rape.

You really see no issue about planning to get girls as drunk as possible to make them more compliant?

Indefensible, IMHO.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Always...because I have two adult male friends who were sexually abused and raped in their lives, I know more about how this affects men and how the victim shaming for men can be as bad or worse than for women...men under report rape perhaps more than women do. Men are expected to say they wanted it. They got an erection so they must have wanted it, right? I personally think that among minors, rape and molestation occurs at the same rate for boys and girls...it is just now that we as a society are getting real about this. One reason so many boys were raped and molested within the catholic church is because of the "boys will be boys" culture that basically told those boys that they must have wanted it, even when "it" came from a trusted elderly priest. The stories of boy rape compared to girl rape are equally as tragic.


----------



## tacoma

always_alone said:


> The problem with Larry's question is that it assumes that any time two people are drunk and having sex, it is rape.


I agree but you are aware the current trend of belief among younger college aged feminists is that any time a woman has drunken sex it is rape due to the fact that legitimate consent can't be given under the influence.



> Which is utterly ridiculous. It is not the drink that makes it rape, it's the lack of consent.


Of course it's ridiculous but as I mentioned before those who have created the meme of rape culture rationalize their perspective by stating that consent doesn't count if the woman is drunk.



> The reason why no one touched his post is because it made no sense, not because anyone here believes that rape of men is any less abhorrent.


It makes perfect sense if one is willing to admit to the hypocrisy in modern extremist feminism.

The hypocrisy lies not in the lack of belief that men can be raped if drunk but in the fact that to this ever growing horde of modern feminists a man is to be held to his actions while drunk when a woman is not.

So, to repeat the question.

If a woman claims after the fact that she was raped because she was drunk and could not truly consent due to intoxication is the accused rapist equally innocent because he was drunk as well and therefore shouldn't be held responsible for his actions?

Any response in the negative to this question is complete and utter sexist hypocrisy and I've seen this hypocrisy repeated by many, many extreme feminists.

What would your answer be AA?


----------



## Caribbean Man

tacoma said:


> I agree but you are aware the current trend of belief among younger college aged feminists is that any time a woman has drunken sex it is rape due to the fact that legitimate consent can't be given under the influence.
> 
> 
> 
> Of course it's ridiculous but as I mentioned before those who have created the meme of rape culture rationalize their perspective by stating that consent doesn't count if the woman is drunk.
> 
> 
> 
> It makes perfect sense if one is willing to admit to the hypocrisy in modern extremist feminism.
> 
> The hypocrisy lies not in the lack of belief that men can be raped if drunk but in the fact that to this ever growing horde of modern feminists a man is to be held to his actions while drunk when a woman is not.
> 
> So, to repeat the question.
> 
> If a woman claims after the fact that she was raped because she was drunk and could not truly consent due to intoxication is the accused rapist equally innocent because he was drunk as well and therefore shouldn't be held responsible for his actions?
> 
> Any response in the negative to this question is complete and utter sexist hypocrisy and I've seen this hypocrisy repeated by many, many extreme feminists.
> 
> What would your answer be AA?


Of course that assumption is a form of hypocrisy and it is based on a double standard.

However in the case of date rape , i it think much can be made in separating the real cases from the false reports if the victims followed protocol.

In all rape cases as with all other crimes , victims are told that the first thing they should do is call the police , and make a report immediately after.

Doing so , increases the odds of a successful prosecution.

Like another poster said , apart from taking personal responsibility, I don't think anything else can be done without restricting the fundamental rights of both male and female.


----------



## always_alone

tacoma said:


> If a woman claims after the fact that she was raped because she was drunk and could not truly consent due to intoxication is the accused rapist equally innocent because he was drunk as well and therefore shouldn't be held responsible for his actions?
> 
> Any response in the negative to this question is complete and utter sexist hypocrisy and I've seen this hypocrisy repeated by many, many extreme feminists.
> 
> What would your answer be AA?


My answer is that, again, we are talking about victims and perpetrators here. The question is not whether the people were sober enough to make decisions, but whether one of them is accountable for harming another.

Let me flip the script, so that you might better see that this is not an issues of hypocritical feminism, but of finding a reasonable way to address a very real crime:

A woman gets a guy drunk enough to almost pass out. While he's semi-conscious, she starts taking advantage of him. He doesn't want this to happen, indeed wants to make it stop, but is too drunk to stand up for himself. He groans, tries to protest, but biology being what it is, gets an erection which she takes full advantage of. 

The CDC recognizes this scenario as sexual violence, and one in five men report being in this or similar situation.

Now let me ask you:. Now that she is a perpetrator, are you now willing to find her innocent because she too had a few drinks?

Any answer in the positive shows an extreme willingness to excuse rape based on drunkenness.

The college campaigns are about raising awareness to protect girls from this type of scenario, not about getting them to accuse boys of rape because they both happened to have a couple of drinks.


----------



## TikiKeen

I'll just leave this right here. PDF pages 16-23 cover pretty much every contested question regarding alcohol.

I won't argue with established DA guidelines. I'm frankly so tired of the all-or-nothing strawmen I'm seeing here. Suffice it to say, it may or may not be rape if both parties are drunk. there is no black & white in that circumstance. 

Blaming false reports for rape culture's existence is simply a red herring, in light of the fact that District Attorneys' own guidelines for prosecution note that views which allow for the idea that a victim deserved to be victimized ("rape culture") harm prosecution. Rape culture is so entrenched that juries have to be reminded that their assumptions of "victim asked for it by behavior/drinking" is just as legally wrong as "victim wore skimpy clothing/danced provacatively". Rape shield laws exist for a damn good reason.

Again, you red-pill-leaning folks can try to argue all you want with it, but the law says you're wrong if you assume it's never rape when two people are drunk. Same goes for you radfems in this discussion: it's not always rape when two drunk people have sex.

Evidence determines that, not our opinions. The middle is where the answer lies.


----------



## JCD

TikiKeen said:


> I'll just leave this right here. PDF pages 16-23 cover pretty much every contested question regarding alcohol.
> 
> I won't argue with established DA guidelines. I'm frankly so tired of the all-or-nothing strawmen I'm seeing here. Suffice it to say, it may or may not be rape if both parties are drunk. there is no black & white in that circumstance.
> 
> Blaming false reports for rape culture's existence is simply a red herring, in light of the fact that District Attorneys' own guidelines for prosecution note that views which allow for the idea that a victim deserved to be victimized ("rape culture") harm prosecution. Rape culture is so entrenched that juries have to be reminded that their assumptions of "victim asked for it by behavior/drinking" is just as legally wrong as "victim wore skimpy clothing/danced provacatively". Rape shield laws exist for a damn good reason.
> 
> Again, you red-pill-leaning folks can try to argue all you want with it, but the law says you're wrong if you assume it's never rape when two people are drunk. Same goes for you radfems in this discussion: it's not always rape when two drunk people have sex.
> 
> Evidence determines that, not our opinions. The middle is where the answer lies.


No one said 'never'. And I am all in favor of a middle ground.


----------



## Faithful Wife

True, no one said never. And there are no real radfems or real redpillers in this particular discussion. Just a few people who regularly debate hot topics here.

Tacoma said: "If a woman claims after the fact that she was raped because she was drunk and could not truly consent due to intoxication is the accused rapist equally innocent because he was drunk as well and therefore shouldn't be held responsible for his actions?"

You've given us a scenario that, by your own design, is he said/she said.

Since you created the scenario, then please fill in the facts: did rape occur or not, in FACT? If yes, then whoever was raped should press charges. The police take it from there and conduct an investigation based on those charges. If they both felt they were raped, or even if one did, whether by fact or not, they can still file those charges but it will come down to he said/she said, just like in your scenario....but if you are telling us she raped him, then I'm saying, put her in jail. It is your scenario so you get to decide what facts are there. If you leave it at he said/she said, then of course you are going to get non-answers from the crowd here. If you are telling us they were both drunk and the FACT was that neither raped the other and she just regretting sleeping with him, then obviously she should NOT report a rape.


----------



## TikiKeen

I'm too lazy to go back four or five pages and find JCD's points that supported as close to all-or-nothing as I've seen. Why should I do other people's introspection for them? 

I'm looking at you, Tacoma:


> Of course it's ridiculous but as I mentioned before those who have created the meme of rape culture rationalize their perspective by stating that consent doesn't count if the woman is drunk


It's not a meme. It's not rationalization. Consent counts every time.

To return to the male victims for a bit...to see just how pervasive and real is rape culture, go here and read the stories of men abused and/or raped as adults. 

Here are some myths about male sex abuse, too. I see symptoms often in posts in CWI and Sex subforums, and restrain myself repeatedly from saying "Good grief! Get some empathy and therapy and see if these awful behaviors are symptoms of sex abuse injury!" (It doesn't excuse things like cheating, sex refusal, emotional abuse by adult survivors, etc., but offers huge insights into why many so many men will not even try to be intimate. Male sex abuse is quite the elephant in the living room.)


----------



## Faithful Wife

One of my female friends was in a sexless relationship for 4 years with a guy, begged him to tell her what the deal was, why wasn't he into sex? He finally confessed he was a CSA survivor...his mother had raped him for many years during childhood, and then when he hit adolescence it still didn't stop until he started getting literally physically ill (his body's attempt to shut down the rape). Doctors finally got it out of him what was going on but NOTHING ever happened to actually protect him. They sent him home with her. The abuse stopped but his agony did not stop, since he still lived with his rapist for the rest of his childhood.

All my empathy goes to ALL real victims. And all rapists need to be dealt with, first by reporting all REAL rape and abuse.


----------



## Catherine602

Can't believe where this discussion is going.

The mental gymnastics that some men use to justify just saying no to sex is astounding. It's horrible that getting sex is so important that simple human restraint and that honor is explained away.

If it weren't so dangerous, it would be laughable - predictably, feminism is brought the discussion. Thank goodness for "feminism", = laws that makes rape a crime. If not for that, women would be raped in buses like they are in some countries.

What restrains a man from rolling a drunk college man? What stops them from assaulting him? Please explain why they don't take advantage of the vulnerabilities of their own gender? Bro code, empathy, compassion, been there done that, honor? 

Women have feelings that are just as acute as that bro you wouldn't think of violating. Being subjected to unwelcome touch and used as a sex doll is emotionally debilitating. 

It affects the whole life profoundly and permanently. That drunk girl will be someones wife, and mother in the future. There is at lest a 1 in 5 chance that the woman you fall in love with may have been assaulted. She may not tell but you will suffer along with her. Is that fair? It's as fair as the words and attitudes that are equivocal about ownership of property and body parts. 

It's simple, if there is even a hint that consent is not expressly given, why have sex? Why not walk away. Zero tolerance, no excuses, no if's, or but's. Zero. It's not essential to have access to every poorly defended vj. Not having an orgasm or two won't kill you. Having one may destroy someones life. Get orgasms from a woman who wants you.

Women need to tell their daughters and any woman who will listen that it's dangerous to have a vj if you can't defend it.


----------



## ocotillo

TikiKeen said:


> It's not a meme. It's not rationalization. Consent counts every time.


Well even that's a complicated issue with a lot of nuances. 

Involuntary intoxication *always* negates consent. 

Voluntary intoxication may negate consent because the effects of alcohol and other drugs continue to build after ingestion. So a person can say, "Yes. Let's go to someplace a little more private" while they're still in a semi-rational state of mind and 15 - 20 minutes later be in a severely intoxicated state.

No sane person should have sex with someone who's truly intoxicated.


----------



## jaharthur

ocotillo said:


> No sane person should have sex with someone who's truly intoxicated.


:iagree:

Pretty simple rule.


----------



## TikiKeen

Ocotillo, since you're parsing words out of the entirety of the context and links I gave, I'll re-phrase:

INFORMED consent counts every time. Booze and drugs, regardless of how they got in into someone's system, negate being fully informed.

Rape is not about sex. Sex is the weapon. Rape is about control and power, period.


----------



## tacoma

always_alone said:


> My answer is that, again, we are talking about victims and perpetrators here. The question is not whether the people were sober enough to make decisions, but whether one of them is accountable for harming another.


But it is exactly the question here.
You keep trying to turn it into an entirely different question.
I refuse to let you.



> Let me flip the script, so that you might better see that this is not an issues of hypocritical feminism, but of finding a reasonable way to address a very real crime:


You haven't flipped the script, you've written an entirely different screenplay but I'll answer anyway.

Of course she is the perpetrator here and guilty of rape but this is not the scenario young men need protection from.
Any man who is the perpetrator in your scenario is a rapist and has earned any punishment that may come his way.

The scenario I'm discussing is ....



> If a woman claims after the fact that she was raped because she was drunk and could not truly consent due to intoxication is the accused rapist equally innocent because he was drunk as well and therefore shouldn't be held responsible for his actions?


I call it "regret sex" not rape and while you and others here poo-poo it's existence I know many men who have been the victim of it or at least the threat of it in one form or another.
I have read dozens of threads in this very forum where a WW has convinced her BH that she was raped or "Thinks she was raped, I dunno, maybe he drugged me" (to escape the repercussions of her infidelity) so thoroughly the poor fool is ready to press charges in defense of his wife and can't understand her hesitancy to do so.

Your ulterior argument (and apparent willingness to accept this inequity)is that these cases rarely get to a courtroom as they are filtered out by the system and that may even be true but the brand of "rapist" upon a man who is ultimately found not guilty doesn't go away with the verdict or failure to prosecute so your argument is meaningless to me.
It will destroy his life in no uncertain terms.
Not "might", "maybe", or "could", it "WILL", destroy his life within our society.

My ultimate point is that the concept of "rape culture" in it's current infancy within college campuses across this nation is dangerous to men and does not allow at all for the concept of innocent until proven guilty if a woman can simply deny consent after the fact due to intoxication.
Which is exactly the concept these young 4th wave feminists seek to canonize.

This is madness but it is madness our society seems ready to embrace.

I am all in favor of egalitarian gender roles/opportunities/equity but I am not in favor of swinging the pendulum so far away from misogyny that it gets stuck in misandry.

Listening to the rhetoric of these young modern feminists is like being transported back to an Andrea Dworkin lecture.


----------



## MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut

Tacoma, I have to ask what is the point you are trying to make with this? Are you questioning the statistics in the OP or what is the reason? In that case the sources for the information are listed, including: _National Institute of Justice & Centers for Disease Control & Prevention, U.S. Department of Justice, U.S. Bureau of Justice Statistics, U.S. Department of Health & Human Services, Administration for Children and Families, World Health Organization._ What is/are your source(s) for your claims?

When I started this thread the point was to show that rapists are not some strangers in a dark alley at night as is too often assumed by many people. Most often it is someone the victim knows, maybe even the spouse: Stay-At-Home Mom: My Husband Was My Rapist | HuffPost Live

This thread is not about fake rape claims, there is already a thread here on TAM about that subject. 

Instead of repeating the other thread and since no one has dared(?) to touch this, why don't you give your thoughts on why the Native American women face twice as much sexual violence than any other group in North America?


----------



## Holland

tacoma said:


> ....................
> So, to repeat the question.
> 
> If a woman claims after the fact that she was raped because she was drunk and could not truly consent due to intoxication is the accused rapist equally innocent because he was drunk as well and therefore shouldn't be held responsible for his actions?
> 
> Any response in the negative to this question is complete and utter sexist hypocrisy and I've seen this hypocrisy repeated by many, many extreme feminists.
> 
> What would your answer be AA?


Intoxication is not a valid defense against a criminal act. It won't get you off any other crime so why should it be considered OK to use this defense to get away with what is one of the worst crimes? The whole question makes no sense unless someone was trying to justify rape which would be abhorrent.


----------



## always_alone

Tacoma,

The scenario you are painting is yet again one where she "just says" she is raped, this time in order to excuse an infidelity. And we've been over this: we all agree that false accusations are abhorrent, a problem all unto themselves. But they have nothing to do with how intoxication affects consent.

And no one is saying that drunkenness makes sex criminal; they are saying that it affects what should be freely given, informed consent.

The standards for men *are* the same. If his consent was impaired by alcohol, he too has legitimate grounds to file a charge against someone who raped him.

Remember, we are talking about victims here.


----------



## TikiKeen

Tacoma, did you read any of the DA prosecutorial guide I posted yesterday? Or is this a case of you arguing enough, using straw men often enough and agitating enough that others leave the conversation, and you feel as if you had won an argument?

Face it: the law addresses your concerns, the law is not in agreement with you. Nor are many of those in this conversation. If you'd like to call the law "sexist hypocrisy", you sure can, although "a response in the negative" is actually a possibility. I personally think you like finding loopholes and agitating.


----------



## always_alone

Holland said:


> Intoxication is not a valid defense against a criminal act. It won't get you off any other crime so why should it be considered OK to use this defense to get away with what is one of the worst crimes? The whole question makes no sense unless someone was trying to justify rape which would be abhorrent.


:iagree: 

To on one hand deny that rape culture exists, and then on the other argue that a victim is even more guilty than the perpetrator is...well ...

pretty good evidence that rape culture is alive and well, IMHO


----------



## Faithful Wife

Tacoma...not ONE person on this thread has condoned "I regret having sex with you, so I will file rape charges". NOT ONE!

So even though that does happen, since no one here is arguing FOR it, why do you keep bringing it up? What does it have to do with ACTUAL rape? You've created the only straw man in this discussion.


----------



## ladybird

Avoiding dark alleys, ok sure. 
I was raped when I was 17, I knew the guy and it wasnt in a dark alley. Most rapes and murders that occur the victim know the person. He over powered me and there was absolutly nothing I could do.


----------



## TikiKeen

Found this this morning; looks like Buzzfeed isn't just for cute puppy photos any more...this piece is well-documented. I'm impressed at its depth and range.


----------



## MYM1430

always_alone said:


> My answer is that, again, we are talking about victims and perpetrators here. The question is not whether the people were sober enough to make decisions, but whether one of them is accountable for harming another.
> 
> Let me flip the script, so that you might better see that this is not an issues of hypocritical feminism, but of finding a reasonable way to address a very real crime:
> 
> A woman gets a guy drunk enough to almost pass out. While he's semi-conscious, she starts taking advantage of him. He doesn't want this to happen, indeed wants to make it stop, but is too drunk to stand up for himself. He groans, tries to protest, but biology being what it is, gets an erection which she takes full advantage of.
> 
> The CDC recognizes this scenario as sexual violence, and one in five men report being in this or similar situation.
> 
> Now let me ask you:. Now that she is a perpetrator, are you now willing to find her innocent because she too had a few drinks?
> 
> Any answer in the positive shows an extreme willingness to excuse rape based on drunkenness.
> 
> The college campaigns are about raising awareness to protect girls from this type of scenario, not about getting them to accuse boys of rape because they both happened to have a couple of drinks.


In your scenario, I (as a male) still do not see the male as a victim. He put himself in a weak and undefensable position and he was taken advantage of. I do admit to holding a double-standard to men in the sexual arena. I have no problem being seen as a potential rapist. Men should be the guardians of their own actions. Period.


----------



## ocotillo

TikiKeen said:


> Ocotillo, since you're parsing words out of the entirety of the context and links I gave, I'll re-phrase:


Are we talking about the booklet, _Prosecuting Alcohol-Facilitated Sexual Assault?_ Because I linked to and quoted from that publication many, many pages ago _vis-à-vis_ the distinction between drunken sex and rape. 



TikiKeen said:


> INFORMED consent counts every time. Booze and drugs, regardless of how they got in into someone's system, negate being fully informed.


I think you and I might be saying basically the same thing, albeit differently. Informed consent is a concept from healthcare law that (In my layman's understanding) is not really applicable here at all. It revolves around the idea of full disclosure of facts and as such, assumes that your cognitive abilities are fully intact and what you are potentially lacking is information that could affect your decision.

That is separate and distinct from what we're talking about with the effects of alcohol and other intoxicants, which degrade your cognitive abilities to the point where you're no longer able to function as an adult. A person is not able to consent to sex under those circumstances because of diminished mental capacity, not lack of information.


----------



## ocotillo

tacoma said:


> If a woman claims after the fact that she was raped because she was drunk and could not truly consent due to intoxication is the accused rapist equally innocent because he was drunk as well and therefore shouldn't be held responsible for his actions?


If I understand your question correctly, you're assuming that both parties voluntarily engaged in sex with no reservations whatsoever. 

You're therefore asking, "If intoxication negates consent, who raped whom?" since both parties were intoxicated and both parties consented. 

According to the publication that both Tikikeen and myself have linked to multiple times now, the distinction between drunken sex and rape in cases where consent was given is decided by a two prong test: 1) Degree of intoxication & 2) Disparity of intoxication.

Disparity of intoxication (e.g. The man was stone cold sober and the woman thoroughly intoxicated.) is a problem because it indicates predatory behavior. And that's something that seems to be lacking in your scenario.


----------



## always_alone

ocotillo said:


> Disparity of intoxication (e.g. The man was stone cold sober and the woman thoroughly intoxicated.) is a problem because it indicates predatory behavior. And that's something that seems to be lacking in your scenario.


Degree of intoxication is also a problem because the more intoxicated one is, the less likely one can process or respond appropriately to coercion, manipulation, unwanted sexual advances, and the like. What may appear on the surface to be acquiescence may in fact be someone who desperately wants out of the situation, but doesn't have the wherewithal to make it happen.

Intoxicated people are widely known to be much more compliant than they would be under normal circumstances (exactly where the "get 'em drunk to get sex" strategy comes from, in fact) --which is why it is legally recognized to affect consent.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Besides...if men are worried about false rape charges, then THEY themselves should refuse to have sex with any woman who could possibly make false rape charges against them and most specifically, they should refuse to have sex with any DRUNK woman for exactly this reason.

Why would men argue "hey, we are sick of these false rape charges?" on one side, and then argue "but hey, I don't want to have to make sure the people I have sex with are fully consenting and/or sober!" It makes no sense. If the worry is false charges then protect YOURSELF from the possibility of those charges. Otherwise it just sounds like a bunch of hot air and whining that doesn't even make sense.


----------



## Racer

Faithful Wife said:


> Besides...if men are worried about false rape charges, then THEY themselves should refuse to have sex with any woman who could possibly make false rape charges against them and most specifically, they should refuse to have sex with any DRUNK woman for exactly this reason..


Go back to mine. I did refuse sex. Didn't change the story of what happened because she thought we did anyway. So the only 'protection' is never find yourself alone with a drunk woman. Better she gets a dui and be held responsible for her drinking than you worry about a false rape charge where you are held responsible for her drinking... :scratchhead:.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Racer said:


> Go back to mine. I did refuse sex. Didn't change the story of what happened because she thought we did anyway. So the only 'protection' is never find yourself alone with a drunk woman. Better she gets a dui and be held responsible for her drinking than you worry about a false rape charge where you are held responsible for her drinking... :scratchhead:.


Racer...do you honestly think your story is all that common?

Because always alone's story is at least as common as yours, right? If not more?

Why is it not understood that all we are saying is LET'S TRY to protect ourselves and each other BETTER.

What exactly are you "against" in my overall message?

Do you think I have no understanding of your situation and that it sucked and that some women are total azzholes? I get it. Always' sitch sucked, too. My sitch sucked, too.

But just because all that stuff sucked, why can I not speak out about trying to end ALL of the sitches that suck, via better education, without getting backlash? What are you backlashing against?


----------



## Racer

Faithful Wife said:


> Racer...do you honestly think your story is all that common?


Yes. I have 2 other friends who also have been accused when there wasn't even sex; both just after the breakup (1 know for sure was fake and heard the tapes and he got formally charged and arrested, the other I take his word for it based on his character and her vengeful character but admittedly don't know for sure). I know both my little boys have been threatened with sexual assault by the school and suspended; one somewhat valid.. a girl and him decided to kiss on the playground which wouldn’t be sexual assault but breaks school policy (he shouldn’t have and it was sexual). The other was my eldest touched her butt during tag (totally non-sexual intent). 

I know one mother whose son was actually charged by the school, not the parents of the girl, and was expelled; Charges got dropped when the girl and her parents refused to testify and play a part in the witchhunt. 

I know four teenaged boys kicked out of their church for sexual assault (making out with their girlfriends in Youth group; who didn’t get booted). 

I know my daughter, when she goes to a teacher about a bully, if that bully is male is asked whether or not he’s touched her or made any sexual comments; if he called her b1tch, then it’s somehow worse than just the bullying. I know through my daughter and nephew that my 14 year old niece and her clique are sexually aggressive and bully the boys they like (or the boyfriends of girls they don’t like) into relationships using sexual stuff… zero ramifications. I’m guessing she gets slack because he mother died last year. 

I know a youth director at another church who was forced to quit his job just because a teenaged girl made accusations (and there wasn’t one shred of evidence at all of any wrong doing… but the scare of a potential scandal was enough that he quit before the gossip got out of hand and ruined his career as a youth director). My mom sat on the board that continued the investigation with the police even after he left. Nothing pointing toward there being an issue, everything pointed to the opposite like people seeing him and the door open when it supposedly happened.

I also have a friend who was terminated for sexual harassment; Admittedly he tells raunchy jokes I could see being offensive. And I’ve seen a billion fights break out because some girl gets hit on, doesn’t like it, and has some other guy who’s interested go beat up the original (and variations of that same story). 

So yes, its not all that uncommon far as men and it’s all pretty normal fare. The opposite of ‘s!ut shaming’ is the sexual predator perception of men and assumed guilt. Basically **** shaming is about making out a girl to be promiscuous; even if it's true, it's a 'bad thing'. That's just the given about a boy and never really questioned at all regardless of history or actions. It's always assumed he is at fault and initiated it all. What you call '**** shaming' can often be just trying to hold the girl to the same standard men are treated where they are actually responsible for their actions and how they might be mis-interpreted. Some of it just isn't bashing. Try being a guy and convincing someone you didn't want it. That's hard and unbelievable to most that you'd say 'no' or didn't want sex unless you can point to something like a massively unattractive female making the accusation. 

*I will however say I do know, as in the majority of women, who have either been raped or been sexually assaulted (groped by someone). So there is a lot of it out there and is probably more often the case than not. * (bolded just because most might skip over this)


----------



## Racer

Faithful Wife said:


> What exactly are you "against" in my overall message?


I'm not against you. I'm against the automatic assumed guilt of any guy who gets accused. I'm against the notion that just because he wasn't convicted or even pressed with charges that there aren't a ton of ramifications and he just got away with it (even if he didn't do anything wrong). I'm against a witchhunt that give the impression "men are out to get women" and lack reserve. I'm against the notion that we have to live in bubbles out of fear until a woman gets up the nerve to broach anything sexual.

I'm basically against painting men as 'bad people' and fear mongering amongst women to encourage those thoughts while simultaneously absolving themselves of any choice or interaction ramifications or mixed messages they regularly send out about their interest in sex with a guy.

That clarify? I think you are essentially saying the same thing, but your solution seems to be having a guy walk away from any woman who immediately doesn't jump his bones or flat out tell him that he is going to have sex. The result will be a junior high school dance with the boys on one side and the girls on the other and no one brave enough to ask. And girls wonder why they end up dancing with each other...

You've scared boys. Because there's nothing we can do that won't be a risk.


----------



## Faithful Wife

But Racer...I'm sorry but, I have no automatic assumed guilt about men being always guilty/at fault. Why paint me or my sex positive message as if I do? I've never painted men as bad people or rapists. I've made sure to repeat over and over that women are azzholes, too.

Why do I need to worry about scaring boys?

Why do I need to worry about scaring girls?

Everyone needs to be afraid of what can happen when rape happens OR rape charges are filed. 

Who do you think you protect by NOT having more sex education? Young people who wanted to have sex but now they are scared? I'm sorry but no force on earth is EVER going to stop young people from having sex. And that's WHY they need more sex positive education.

For one thing, sex positive education includes information about PLEASURE. This is the one place where formal sex ed misses the point and that messes everything up. We need to be able to talk to kids about how good sex and sex play feels...and that sex WILL most likely be part of their lives, so learn young and early what to do with it and who to do it with and what consent really means.

You think the result of more sex positive ed will result in junior high school dances with boys on one side and girls on the other and no one meeting in between, and THAT'S your argument against it? Sorry but....wtf?


----------



## always_alone

Racer said:


> I know both my little boys have been threatened with sexual assault by the school and suspended; one somewhat valid.. a girl and him decided to kiss on the playground which wouldn’t be sexual assault but breaks school policy (he shouldn’t have and it was sexual). The other was my eldest touched her butt during tag (totally non-sexual intent).


Wow. How's this for different worlds: When I was raped the principal of my school announced publicly that I must've asked for it or done something to deserve it. And this was the general consensus.

Indeed, the prosecutors warned of such. In those days, it was always the rape victim who was presumed guilty, while the rapist had the luxury of being presumed innocent until facts said otherwise (and which they rarely did because of the inherent biases in the system).

Maybe you're right, though, that the pendulum is swinging too far in the other direction. I'm skeptical of placing too much weight on school policy and practice, as schools are notoriously terrible at sex education, and seem hell bent on sending out damaging and sex negative messages at every turn.

But I can see how responding in this way, overreacting at every remotely inappropriate behaviour is probably teaching young girls that they have an immense power that they will likely not be held accountable for, and as we all know, power corrupts.

It's a tough one though, as surely we don't want to slide back to the days when the victim is never believed. 

I'm with FW, sex positive education that focuses on pleasure, respect, and care is a must.


----------



## RealUr

Faithful Wife said:


> Besides...if men are worried about false rape charges, then THEY themselves should refuse to have sex with any woman who could possibly make false rape charges against them and most specifically, they should refuse to have sex with any DRUNK woman for exactly this reason.
> 
> Why would men argue "hey, we are sick of these false rape charges?" on one side, and then argue "but hey, I don't want to have to make sure the people I have sex with are fully consenting and/or sober!" It makes no sense. If the worry is false charges then protect YOURSELF from the possibility of those charges. Otherwise it just sounds like a bunch of hot air and whining that doesn't even make sense.


Let me change your statement slightly to see if it becomes more objectionable to you.

"Besides...if women are worried about rape, then THEY themselves should distance themselves from any man who could possibly rape them ..."

I doubt that you would support that statement, with the sexes reversed.

Men who have been falsely accused of rape are obviously victims. If you want to encourage those victims to take at least partial responsibility for being victimized, wouldn't it be logically consistent to do the same for victims who are women?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Gee, welcome back, "new poster". I bet you have a lot to say about false rape charges! Kind of like the other "new poster" that showed up at the beginning of this tread, right? No surprise.


----------



## Disenchanted

Here's a rape statistic:

The nature of women's rape fantasies: an a... [J Sex Res. 2009 Jan-Feb] - PubMed - NCBI


----------



## RealUr

So, no comment on the double standard, then? OK.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Dis...did you not see the several posts here where I talk openly about rape play? I'm just asking cuz, you seem to think you are clever for pointing it out or something? Like "oh look, women like to fantasize about rape!" as if it has anything to do with real rape? There's a whole lot of made-for-male rape porn, too. We've been told to accept that even though men watch this, they aren't into real rape. So, your point?


----------



## Disenchanted

Faithful Wife said:


> Dis...did you not see the several posts here where I talk openly about rape play?......


No I must have missed your posts.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh look! Someone signed on to TAM just to join this discussion! And they want to ask ME all about double standards! :rofl:

Which is only the SECOND time that exact same thing has happened on THIS THREAD alone!


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh well I'll just tell you again then Dis....my H and I play date rape by him giving me an ambien and then having sex with me while I'm drugged...and then sometimes we take pics so we have our pretend rape porn to go along with it.

We tried it the other way once. I gave him the ambien...but when the drug kicked in, he just wasn't able to take instruction or use his body in any way that was useful to me for raping purposes. We are working on finding other drugs that might work.

In the meantime, I just make him pretend to be drugged. 

It is quite fun either way.


----------



## Disenchanted

Faithful Wife said:


> Oh well I'll just tell you again then Dis....


Cheese and Rice that sounds fun. How could I have missed that post?

I use restraints among other things. Simulated rape is great fun.


----------



## always_alone

RealUr said:


> "Besides...if women are worried about rape, then THEY themselves should distance themselves from any man who could possibly rape them ..."


Um, you do realize the great lengths that most women already go to for exactly this reason, don't you?


----------



## always_alone

Disenchanted said:


> Here's a rape statistic:
> 
> The nature of women's rape fantasies: an a... [J Sex Res. 2009 Jan-Feb] - PubMed - NCBI


This is not a rape statistic. The difference between rape fantasy and rape reality is night and day.

A rape statistic looks more like this:
One third of Native American women will be raped in their lifetime, often more than once.

Let us not suppose this is their fantasy.


----------



## Racer

always_alone said:


> Wow. How's this for different worlds: When I was raped the principal of my school announced publicly that I must've asked for it or done something to deserve it. And this was the general consensus..


Now they have "zero tolerance" rules on most of this stuff as well as 'violence'. There are also 'resource officers' (cops) regularly there to scare these kids about charges.

The lessons for 'violence' are even nastier and 99% of the time against boys. 5 times we've had to come pick up our boys. 3 mandatory visits to the school psychologist to 'discuss'. 2 times they've been placed in a office with the police badgering for a confession. Violent? Half of that was for doodling a star wars scene with light sabers. One for making an finger gun and shooting another kid during a confrontation. The confession one was for a prank phone call where 'they knew it was' our son. 2 hours in a room being interrogated, cell phone ceased and they didn't call us. The cops & school also got involved when our son flipped off another boy (who'd been trying to get in a fight) and his mother chased him in her car and banged on our front door with our 3 kids at home alone; Our kids called the cops and me. I rushed home. The next day, their resource officer had our son in a room interrogating him about the event and trying to get him to confessing that he flipped of the mom, threw rocks at her, kicked her car, and yelled obscenities... (basically assaulted her). He was hiding in our house on the phone with me and the police.... Ugh. What we are teaching boys is wrong.

So ya... I get a bit uppity about men and boys and the lessons you are teaching them. I know my two already feel as though 'it's harder to be good'. Read up on labeling (a sociology term). Expect more shootings and violence when you teach entire generations that is who they are and how these bad people (like them) react. They rape, they shoot others, etc. It's the exception that boys can 'resist' doing this right? Sort of how it feels....

Oh, and lol... our daughter. We got called to the office one day for her. She had been stabbing another boy in the head with a pencil repeatedly. So, they had a talk with her and told her not to do that anymore. They brought us in basically to example that it was "serious"... not suspended, no resource officer... That's a girl.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Racer, none of that has anything to do with rape.

Everything you are saying DOES need to be looked at ALSO. But why mix the two up?

By mixing up the two, you are making it look like those of us who care about consent culture do NOT care about what happens to young men and what is going on with them. That is not the case! I care about men and boys and read about this stuff all the time...please stop trying to push the two different problems together.

You have no idea how much stuff I read that would support everything you are saying in the post above. At TAM, I have no reason to post about those issues, but that doesn't mean I'm ignorant of them and it also doesn't mean they are one and the same as rape culture issues.

I am friends with this author...I follow him, converse with him on issues, have done book reviews of his work. Please check out his work and GET INVOLVED in changing the mess you are talking about. It is not hopeless, but we have to actually DO something not just talk about how everything sucks.

6 Ways Jokes about Violence Against Men Harms Male Victims -


----------



## the2ofus

Racer~ reading your posts makes me so glad I am homeschooling my kids. My boys would be the one who stands up for someone being picked on by a girl.

You should have your kids ask for their right to have their lawyer present, all criminals have the right to that.

Victimizing either gender is wrong, the backlash of men being victimized is people will go back to not believing the women.

Sad thing is abusers of either gender know how to make themselves the victim, we have to look for the truth, educate people. Those in authority need to not just have policies that determine whose guilty before even hearing the story.


----------



## MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut

Another example that rape culture exists: Game of Thrones Breaker of Chains Rape Scene George RR Martin | The Mary Sue


----------



## Racer

It is all related FW. Look at the much broader picture of the public message sent out about men & women.



> In sociology, labeling theory is the view of deviance according to which being labeled as a "deviant" leads a person to engage in deviant behavior. Originating in Howard Becker's work in the 1960s, labeling theory explains why people's behavior clashes with social norms. For example, a teenager who lives in an urban area frequented by gangs might be labeled as a gang member. Accordingly, the teenager might begin to behave like a gang member or become one. Sometimes the person labeled incorporates the label into that person's self-concept (as when a teenager labeled as a gang member begins to think of himself or herself as a gang member). Some researchers believe people of lower social status are more likely to be labeled deviant


Basically, however you treat another group, the more likely it will be that they become that. It’s also a two way street. Setting a group to be the victim (and they start believing it) and setting another group as the aggressor (and they start believing that). You are essentially setting the standards by the lowest denominator of that group. So, I can feel a bit better that I’m not a rapist because it’s more like “I’m better than the average guy” (which would take advantage of a drunk girl). You can feel better as a woman because “you were stronger” than the typical woman who’d allow that happen and not report it or can act like a floozy but knows she isn’t ‘one of those girls’. See how that works? 

The fear mongering feeds into the idea of “normality” for whatever group you associate with. The more extreme it goes, the lower that bar is set where you can still feel "not so bad" about your actions. Slugs and snails (and aggressors) versus sugar and spice (and victims)…. So the double edged sword is IF you stay above that minimum threshold of ‘normality’, it isn’t ‘that bad’ and you can still tell yourself you aren’t a bad person.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No I'm not because you keep missing the fact that I know that MEN and BOYS also get RAPED, sometimes by men but also by WOMEN.

So therefore, WOMEN are also rapists.

I'm not sure what message you believe I'm advocating, but apparently you've got it wrong based on your assumptions of what I'm saying. Wish I could get it through to you, but you seem to have already decided what I'm saying, so I'll leave it at that because I don't have any reason to change your mind (since I've already tried with numerous posts).

But I know that real sex positive education doesn't paint men as bad and women as good. It paints everyone as needing to take responsibility for their bodies. When done in a truly sex positive way, this would protect everyone.

Again, kinksters "get it". They don't run around talking about all the false rape charges OR the rapists. They understand that consent means all things are possible with the right partner, and ZERO things are possible with the wrong (non-consenting) partner.

That's really all it is.


----------



## Racer

Faithful Wife said:


> I'm not sure what message you believe I'm advocating, but apparently you've got it wrong based on your assumptions of what I'm saying..


Ugh... no, you keep making the assumption I'm calling you out. You keep asking things like "how is that related" and I answer. You keep telling me "but do you think that's normal?" and I answer. 

About the only place I don't agree with you is when you say 'no means no'... my experience has been more often than not, it just means 'no, not right now but I'm not ruling it out and reserve the right to change my decision based on your future actions and my interpretations of them." Really sex is nothing more than a negotiation of terms and conditions when it comes down to it. Both of you know within a minute whether you would or wouldn't and it's just finding the terms to satisfy your own ego and conditions. 

I'm not really saying what you are preaching is wrong as it relates to men and women. I just continue to clarify because you keep asking. I haven't really said anything about your post because I don't necessarily disagree, just think it's too focused down to specifics instead of the holistic 'as a society' thing that perpetuates these stereotypes and that 'thar be monsters' mentality of perceiving everything in a negative. Which creates even more negative.

I just want to get to a place where I can take a drunk girl home without having to think in terms of proving my innocence pro-actively because society believes, once that door closes, I'll screw her and it's wrong and vile instead of a nice guy helping a blindingly drunk girl get home safe. It's basically assumed I'd do the wrong thing. And that sucks for men.


----------



## Faithful Wife

I asked only if you thought YOUR specific history was normal/common. And then I also said even if it IS, so is always alone's.

I only asked that once. So...:scratchhead:

I disagree that it is assumed you'd do the wrong thing automatically because you're a man. But I accept that you believe this is society's view. I do not. 

I assume most people are good and do the right thing. Even when they do the wrong thing, I don't assume I know why or have all the facts.

But I also assume more education is always good, as long as it is fair and true education.


----------



## always_alone

Racer said:


> It is all related FW. Look at the much broader picture of the public message sent out about men & women.


Labelling theory is too simplistic, IMHO, as is your portrayal of societal views as man=bad and woman=good.

There are so many contradictory and complex stereotypes swirling around and people do have agency in how we take them up and impose them on others.

That said, I see your point. For ages men were said to be intellectual, rational, logical, and told they could excel in the mathematician and sciences. And lo and behold, so they did.

And girls were told they were too emotional, irrational, school was wasted on them. So of course they virtually never excelled.

Now the tables have turned, and girls are seen to be all hose clever things, and they are flourishing in schools, rapidly outstripping boys who are reminded again and again that they aren't fitting in well enough to the standardized regime.

When it comes to rape, though, there's some seriously mixed messaging. For all the "touching girls is bad" messages, women are still largely portrayed and treated as a collection of body parts that exist for male gratification. And you can see by this thread, it is still pretty typical to assume that most rape accusations are false, and women are just being vengeful and shirking their own responsibility.


----------



## Wolfman1968

TikiKeen said:


> We haven't even begun to discuss things like GHB, or plying a victim with drinks or drugs, then discrediting his or her claims during investigation....yes, it does happen.
> 
> Oddly, I see few statistics being cited in this conversation. Bluntly, I'm appalled at the number of men questioning police methodology, state and federal reporting methods, and the flat assumption that false reports are higher than they really are among both men and women.
> 
> To wit...
> 
> and
> 
> this, about false report statistics and study modalities.


So, for those who haven't looked at your links (particularly the second one), the second link quotes studies that say the range for false reports is 2-8% in most studies, although it quotes the Toronto Metropolitan Police study of 1996 showing 10.9% false reporting and mentions but disputes the methodology of the Kanin study of 1994 which reported a 41% false report percentage. The link also says the largest and most rigorous study by the British Home office in 2005 showed an 8% false reporting percentage. However, applying a very strict standard of classification of a False Report to this study makes the percentage of False Reports at 2.5%. It quotes a couple other studies which also use very strict criteria that yield a rate in the low 2.x% range. However, that does NOT mean the other 97+% are not false--rather, that they did not meet the very strict criteria (stated in your link to be "clear and credible admission by the complainant" that it is false or "strong evidential grounds" that it is false). That means, some of the 97% includes False Reports as well, but they didn't have a confession or strong evidence that it was false. The he-said, she-said type of reports would fall into this group, therefore.

Thus, the actual number of false reports are really unknown, and your link even states this. However, based on my other reviews, I can accept that your link's rate of 2-8% is close, but also based on those reviews I believe the true rate would be at the top of that range, about 8%-9% (which makes sense, since very few cases of False Reports would have the strong evidence/confessions that the strict studies that yield the 2-3% require to declare a report false).

What does that mean? Well, that means I can believe that the majority of reports are true (over 90%). However, even 8-9% is an unacceptably high rate of false reporting. (For that matter, even 5% or 2% is unacceptably high).

That means tens of thousands of innocent men (almost exclusively men) are arrested, investigated, charged and sometimes even imprisoned falsely. 8% means one out of 12. That's an incredibly high amount. The falsely charged men have their lives destroyed. Even if they are found not guilty, the cloud hangs over them for the rest of their lives.

Interestingly, your link states "We all know that false reports do really exist, and they are incredibly damaging to both criminal justice personnel and to the countless victims of sexual assault whose credibility they undermine." Conspicuously absent is any mention of damage to the falsely accused. In addition, there is a strong tendancy NOT to prosecute the False Reports, possibly in a majority of the cases (it seems so in a majority of the high profile cases I have seen reported--even the notorious Crystal Mangum, from the Duke Lacrosse fiasco, was not charged). Considering what happens to the falsely accused, I find it a horrible injustice not to prosecute these false reports. The claim that it will discourage true reports is not a valid enough reason to defer prosecution when you consider the damage done to the wrongly accused, in my opinion.

There is a principle that underlies our legal justice system, the Blackstone rule that it is better to let 10 guilty men go free than to convict a single innocent man (often modified to let 100 guilty go free). I am not convinced this is being followed in society today; in fact, I see quite a bit of evidence against it. The Innocence Project has revealed many false imprisonment injustices. The Justice Department is now trying to force universities to forgo the usual Due Process in campus rape accusations by requiring the expulsion of the accused after a 51% vote of a student/faculty/administration committee. With an 8% false accusation rate, many, many innocent students will have their lives destroyed.

Alan Dershowitz, the recently retired high profile Harvard Law professor once called rape the most under-reported and most over-reported crime. Even the 8% False Accusation rate quoted in your link would make him right.


----------



## TurtleRun

I know two people that have been raped and by people they thought they could trust.... their co-workers. One was a female and one was a male and both were military.


----------



## MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut

Wolfman1968, while you have an interesting think process going on there, I don't really see how your post is relevant to this thread. Though you mentioned universities and "forcing" them to expulse, universities don't seem too keen on doing that: Brown University Will Allow Rapist Who Choked His Victim Back On Campus


----------



## ocotillo

MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut said:


> Another example that rape culture exists: Game of Thrones Breaker of Chains Rape Scene George RR Martin | The Mary Sue


I'm not into _Game of Thrones_, but based on a brief perusal, it appears to be a fantasy set in what would roughly correspond to our own early or middle iron age (?)

Do you think the director's decision to depict sex where consent is questionable at best was intended to reflect attitudes associated with a more primitive time and place or is in linked in some way that I'm missing, to the reality of our time?

For example, the HBO miniseries, _Rome_ depicted nonconsensual sex at least once, but that was more than likely intended to reflect the brutal reality of life in the 1st century BC.

I guess some of it would depend on how the character, Jamie Lannister is otherwise depicted in the series. In the case of Mark Antony in _Rome_, there is no doubt in our minds that he is a brutally opportunistic scoundrel.


----------



## EasyPartner

ocotillo said:


> I'm not into _Game of Thrones_, but based on a brief perusal, it appears to be a fantasy set in what would roughly correspond to our own early or middle iron age (?)
> 
> Do you think the director's decision to depict sex where consent is questionable at best was intended to reflect attitudes associated with a more primitive time and place or is in linked in some way that I'm missing, to the reality of our time?
> 
> For example, the HBO miniseries, _Rome_ depicted nonconsensual sex at least once, but that was more than likely intended to reflect the brutal reality of life in the 1st century BC.
> 
> I guess some of it would depend on how the character, Jamie Lannister is otherwise depicted in the series. In the case of Mark Antony in _Rome_, there is no doubt in our minds that he is a brutally opportunistic scoundrel.


Yup. You said it all... I'll try to put it in TAM lingo... both Mark Antony and Jamie Lannister are major alfas AFTER reading NMMNG  

Although boning his sister may not be very alfa to begin with.

So being that AND highborn/high status in those ages, they could get away with pretty much everything.

I don't see how this is an example of contemporary "rape culture". We don't condone cutting each other's throats (or even worse) either but you see a lot of that also on these series.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut said:


> Another example that rape culture exists: Game of Thrones Breaker of Chains Rape Scene George RR Martin | The Mary Sue


As a follower of the books and show, I can tell you exactly what this is... and its not an example of "rape culture", which frankly I'm irritated to hear.

As written by Martin in the book, Cersei and Jaime had passionate consensual sex upon Jaime's return to the Capital from his long captivity. The show on the other hand didn't have Cersei and Jaime hooking up until weeks after Jaime's return - as a result of other unrelated changes to the narration - some of which to show Jaime's isolation... fall from grace if you will (he's lost his sword hand and the basis of his reputation and arrogance; he has no real friends and his close relationship with his brother Tyrion gets emphasized). It made no sense for this passionate consensual scene to play out if Jaime had been available to Cersei for some time. The scene was intended to bring the show and book back into alignment - with Cersei and Jaime passionate again, but also continue the complexity of Jaime's character... who is meant to waffle from honorable to dubious... leaving you never quite sure what to expect of him. Will he sacrifice himself or act on another's behalf, or will he be the self-centered prick?

The show is full of betrayals, prostitution, murder, torture, and genital mutilation (two main characters have their junk cut off)... and everyone is sooo upset about a scene that was rapey as proof of our rape culture? Really? :slap:

Imagine the crying if the genital mutilation was done on a woman. Its done on men... and no one makes a peep. Funny how that works.


----------



## Faithful Wife

No one makes a peep? Dvls, there is a huge movement of men AND women who are against circumcising babies.


----------



## Faithful Wife

An Open Letter to the Author of 'How Circumcision Broke the Internet' -


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Faithful Wife said:


> No one makes a peep? Dvls, there is a huge movement of men AND women who are against circumcising babies.


No one made a peep when Theon was castrated only a few shows earlier.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Why Do We Still Circumcise Boys? -


----------



## Faithful Wife

Oh sorry...I thought you meant about the practice of it in the US. But still! I am glad there's a movement about it.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

I have no idea what your point is. Castration on Game of Thrones is indicative of our culture of circumcision?


----------



## Faithful Wife

No, I misread your point, that's all. Sorry, dear.


----------



## MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut

ocotillo said:


> I'm not into _Game of Thrones_, but based on a brief perusal, it appears to be a fantasy set in what would roughly correspond to our own early or middle iron age (?)
> 
> Do you think the director's decision to depict sex where consent is questionable at best was intended to reflect attitudes associated with a more primitive time and place or is in linked in some way that I'm missing, to the reality of our time?
> 
> For example, the HBO miniseries, _Rome_ depicted nonconsensual sex at least once, but that was more than likely intended to reflect the brutal reality of life in the 1st century BC.
> 
> I guess some of it would depend on how the character, Jamie Lannister is otherwise depicted in the series. In the case of Mark Antony in _Rome_, there is no doubt in our minds that he is a brutally opportunistic scoundrel.





DvlsAdvc8 said:


> As a follower of the books and show, I can tell you exactly what this is... and its not an example of "rape culture", which frankly I'm irritated to hear.
> 
> As written by Martin in the book, Cersei and Jaime had passionate consensual sex upon Jaime's return to the Capital from his long captivity. The show on the other hand didn't have Cersei and Jaime hooking up until weeks after Jaime's return - as a result of other unrelated changes to the narration - some of which to show Jaime's isolation... fall from grace if you will (he's lost his sword hand and the basis of his reputation and arrogance; he has no real friends and his close relationship with his brother Tyrion gets emphasized). It made no sense for this passionate consensual scene to play out if Jaime had been available to Cersei for some time. The scene was intended to bring the show and book back into alignment - with Cersei and Jaime passionate again, but also continue the complexity of Jaime's character... who is meant to waffle from honorable to dubious... leaving you never quite sure what to expect of him. Will he sacrifice himself or act on another's behalf, or will he be the self-centered prick?
> 
> The show is full of betrayals, prostitution, murder, torture, and genital mutilation (two main characters have their junk cut off)... and everyone is sooo upset about a scene that was rapey as proof of our rape culture? Really? :slap:
> 
> Imagine the crying if the genital mutilation was done on a woman. Its done on men... and no one makes a peep. Funny how that works.


Judging from your responses I assume neither of you read the article in the link. FYI it's not about the books but about the director and producers' attitudes.

Excerpt:


> a sex scene that is widely read as consensual in the books was changed to be rape.
> 
> The scene was read by pretty much everyone who watched it as rape, probably because of the way Cersei said “No, no” all the way through it and Jaime responded to her “It’s not right” with “I don’t care.” Which, y’know… that’s pretty rapey. But *Graves doesn’t see it that way; he told HitFix that the scene “becomes consensual by the end*, because anything for them ultimately results in a turn-on, especially a power struggle.”


Graves is the director of the episode. First they change what is originally consensual sex in the books to rape then make it like rape becomes consensual. Rape cannot become consensual, that's utter nonsense and pretty much displays their attitude as making light of a heinous crime. Rape culture at its worst.


----------



## Created2Write

I haven't been following the whole thread, but...I really fail to see how a television show character's genital mutilation is relevant to a discussion about rape? This thread isn't about genital mutilation, it's about _rape_. No one is making a fuss about that here because...ahem...it's not what's being discussed. If someone wants to see an outrage over genital mutilation, they should start a thread about it instead of bringing it up somewhere over the mention of a stupid t.v. show just to make an unfounded point.


----------



## ocotillo

MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut said:


> Judging from your responses I assume neither of you read the article in the link. FYI it's not about the books but about the director and producers' attitudes.



Although the writing style is painful, I did actually read the article you linked to. 

"Rape culture" is still editorializing on the part of others since Ms. Pahle did not make that claim herself and I'm still curious how that leap is being made.

Why do you believe that Grave's comments are a reflection of rape culture as opposed to, perhaps his own ignorance of modern law?


----------



## Faithful Wife

Ignorance is part of the problem of rape culture. Education is the solution to ignorance.


----------



## ocotillo

Created2Write said:


> I haven't been following the whole thread, but...I really fail to see how a television show character's genital mutilation is relevant to a discussion about rape?


I think the relevancy is indirect. Any work that portrays ancient history (Like Rome in the first century BC) or an entirely fictional world set in a different age than ours (Like Game of Thrones) is likely going to depict all sorts of things that are illegal and immoral today.

With most of these things, I think we recognize that it's silly to try to anachronistically project the ethics and laws of an enlightened age backwards, especially when we're dealing with a work of pure fiction. 

The question of why this fallacy is being committed selectively is an interesting one. To me it suggests a heightened awareness and sensitivity on the subject of rape.


----------



## Created2Write

ocotillo said:


> I think the relevancy is indirect. Any work that portrays ancient history (Like Rome in the first century BC) or an entirely fictional world set in a different age than ours (Like Game of Thrones) is likely going to depict all sorts of things that are illegal and immoral today.
> 
> With most of these things, I think we recognize that it's silly to try to anachronistically project the ethics and laws of an enlightened age backwards, especially when we're dealing with a work of pure fiction.


I get why Game of Thrones was brought up. How it depicts rape and consensual sex is massively distorted from reality, and in my opinion, glamorizes something that *should not* be glamorized. What I _don't_ get is why genital mutilation is relevant at all, especially in the context of Dvls post. As if the people here somehow have a double standard just because they didn't jump all over the many disgusting things portrayed in Game of Thrones. Contextually, genital mutilation isn't relevant to the rest of the thread. 

I don't think anyone here agrees with genital mutilation. And while it's not as prominent as rape, it does still take place today across the world, and I find it horrible and sickening. But it has no bearing on how rape is perceived in our society.



> The question of why this fallacy is being committed selectively is an interesting one. To me it suggests a heightened awareness and sensitivity on the subject of rape.


I'm not sure what you mean...


----------



## Faithful Wife

Great article by the good Dr. Nerdlove.

Understanding The Dangers of Dating - Paging Dr. NerdLove


----------



## ocotillo

Created2Write said:


> I'm not sure what you mean...


I'm looking at it from the standpoint of public reaction. 

Why did the scene trouble so many watchers of the show? Why did Graves, Benioff and others have to explain their decisions about this particular episode multiple times when other scenes of graphic violence in other episodes hardly raised an eyebrow? 

Doesn't it suggest that the viewership is more sensitive to the subject of rape?


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut said:


> Graves is the director of the episode. First they change what is originally consensual sex in the books to rape then make it like rape becomes consensual. Rape cannot become consensual, that's utter nonsense and pretty much displays their attitude as making light of a heinous crime. Rape culture at its worst.


You clearly don't watch the show or understand the characters involved. Yes... power struggle is a turn on for both of these characters. There is no heinous crime here. Cersei is a downright twisted, power hungry woman and Jaime is usually an arrogant d*ck. They are brother and sister... is this indicative of our incest culture?

Women's #1 reported fantasies are rape fantasies - upon closer examination, they aren't actually fantasies of being raped, but fantasizing about a man they actually want who takes them passionately in spite of her resistance. I've been in several relationships where my gf at the time expressed desire to be "taken" in a manner that showed I wanted her so badly I couldn't control myself. To turn resistance into acquiescence. The context here is trust and understanding the difference between token resistance and actual rejection. Even women with rape fantasies don't actually want to be raped - they are turned on by the thought of a man they want uncontrollably lusting for them and breaking down their resistance. The same thing is presented in GoT in an edgy extreme way by edgy extreme characters. Jaime and Cersei are in fact in love and this sort of power play is exactly befitting the characters.

We've even had discussion of this rapey thing and rape fantasies on TAM before. Its kink. Its certain women's desire for uncontrollable lust from the men they love and bending to his physicality. It might not be your thing, but it is many women's thing.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

Created2Write said:


> I haven't been following the whole thread, but...I really fail to see how a television show character's genital mutilation is relevant to a discussion about rape? This thread isn't about genital mutilation, it's about _rape_. No one is making a fuss about that here because...ahem...it's not what's being discussed. If someone wants to see an outrage over genital mutilation, they should start a thread about it instead of bringing it up somewhere over the mention of a stupid t.v. show just to make an unfounded point.


My point is the hypocrisy of crying about what is little more than rape kink while not batting an eyelash at the rest of the extremes in the show. ITS AN EXTREME SHOW.

But bottom line, Jaime didn't rape Cersei. Cersei did in fact come along at the end - exactly as a woman with this sort of kink does. This is the relationship dynamic between them they've chosen for the show - after all, its a show about power plays! Cersei wouldn't be the first woman to have this kink.


----------



## Faithful Wife

Male rape in America: A new study reveals that men are sexually assaulted almost as often as women.


----------



## MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> My point is the hypocrisy of crying about what is little more than rape kink while not batting an eyelash at the rest of the extremes in the show. ITS AN EXTREME SHOW.
> 
> But bottom line, Jaime didn't rape Cersei. Cersei did in fact come along at the end - exactly as a woman with this sort of kink does. This is the relationship dynamic between them they've chosen for the show - after all, its a show about power plays! Cersei wouldn't be the first woman to have this kink.


You sound like you have a lot of experience about this "kink." You are essentially saying that a crime can become a non-crime just because your victim isn't resisting you anymore.

And I'll repeat myself to you once more - maybe you read it this time. My comment about rape culture is not about Game of Thrones show at all. It's about the comment the director made and his attitude towards rape. Unfortunately you seem to share this attitude with him. When enough people share this kind of indifferent and harmful attitude, it becomes a culture.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut said:


> You sound like you have a lot of experience about this "kink." You are essentially saying that a crime can become a non-crime just because your victim isn't resisting you anymore.
> 
> And I'll repeat myself to you once more - maybe you read it this time. My comment about rape culture is not about Game of Thrones show at all. It's about the comment the director made and his attitude towards rape. Unfortunately you seem to share this attitude with him. When enough people share this kind of indifferent and harmful attitude, it becomes a culture.


The attitude I share with the director is that this is a form of sexual kink that many people get into and is perfectly suited to the characters of Cersei and Jaime, and the overall power game theme in Game of Thrones.

I am saying there is a lot more here than "she resisted, so it must be rape". And yes, I have plenty of experience with such kink. Were these women asking to be raped? Were they a part of this "rape culture"? No... this is hot sexual play for some.

I'm indifferent to overselling (A culture of rape!!) and the throwing about of the word rape so willy nilly. Actual rape is a serious thing. The scene in the show is befitting of extreme characters and the power games they play - that is the director's and the show's vision. It is not some example of rape culture or promotion of rape anymore than it is a promotion of incest.


----------



## *LittleDeer*

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The attitude I share with the director is that this is a form of sexual kink that many people get into and is perfectly suited to the characters of Cersei and Jaime, and the overall power game theme in Game of Thrones.
> 
> I am saying there is a lot more here than "she resisted, so it must be rape". And yes, I have plenty of experience with such kink. Were these women asking to be raped? Were they a part of this "rape culture"? No... this is hot sexual play for some.
> 
> I'm indifferent to overselling (A culture of rape!!) and the throwing about of the word rape so willy nilly. Actual rape is a serious thing. The scene in the show is befitting of extreme characters and the power games they play - that is the director's and the show's vision. It is not some example of rape culture or promotion of rape anymore than it is a promotion of incest.


I completely disagree. 

She was next to her son's dead body. I don't believe she wanted to have sex- therefore it's rape.

I also know a lot about this kink. 

However rape is rape. 

If men are unsure it's pretty easy to find out if your partner wants to have sex. Ask them "Are you OK?" or "Is this OK for you?" etc.

Anytime you ask why a woman was walking there? wearing that? etc Then you excuse the actions of the perpetrator and any time you make light of or joke about rape, you make rape seem like it's OK and done by everyone to the rapists.


----------



## MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut

DvlsAdvc8 said:


> The attitude I share with the director is that this is a form of sexual kink that many people get into and is perfectly suited to the characters of Cersei and Jaime, and the overall power game theme in Game of Thrones.
> 
> I am saying there is a lot more here than "she resisted, so it must be rape". And yes, I have plenty of experience with such kink. Were these women asking to be raped? Were they a part of this "rape culture"? No... this is hot sexual play for some.
> 
> I'm indifferent to overselling (A culture of rape!!) and the throwing about of the word rape so willy nilly. Actual rape is a serious thing. The scene in the show is befitting of extreme characters and the power games they play - that is the director's and the show's vision. It is not some example of rape culture or promotion of rape anymore than it is a promotion of incest.


So you are actually arguing whether the scene was a rape or not. Forget the show for now and think about the director's sentence: "rape becomes consensual." Now replace the crime (rape) with anything else. "Murder becomes consensual," "physical assault becomes consensual," "gun shooting becomes consensual." Do these sentences still make sense to you?

If you, in fact think that rape can become consensual then your thinking is from the 70s when it was still OK for a husband to rape his wife. Don't use kink as an excuse as you might know very well that in role play everyone involved know what they are doing and they use safe words. If it's role play to begin with it has nothing to do with rape.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

*LittleDeer* said:


> I completely disagree.
> 
> She was next to her son's dead body. I don't believe she wanted to have sex- therefore it's rape.


We're not talking about fine, psychologically healthy and well adjusted people here. These characters have MAJOR issues. There are a slew of people, men and women alike who will have sex as an escape. It was Jaime's son too. The rapey sex turned consensual perfectly fits the disordered nature of the characters and their unhealthy, dysfunctional relationship.

This is not a telling of how a regular man in a regular relationship can make her consent by forcing himself on her in front of their dead son. The emphasis is on how messed up and emotionally damaged these people are.



*LittleDeer* said:


> If men are unsure it's pretty easy to find out if your partner wants to have sex. Ask them "Are you OK?" or "Is this OK for you?" etc.


That's about as far as you can get from kink. If I'm doing this, I'm absolutely certain its ok. Its hard to say exactly how I know this... sometimes its talked about in advance, but other times, there's more of an intuitive sense to it. Maybe I'm a rapist... I'm apparently already being labeled a rapist sympathizer... but I don't know if raped women tell their rapist afterwards, "I love when you do that" - as I've been told. I'm just saying there is in fact a hell of a lot of gray here.



*LittleDeer* said:


> Anytime you ask why a woman was walking there? wearing that? etc Then you excuse the actions of the perpetrator and any time you make light of or joke about rape, you make rape seem like it's OK and done by everyone to the rapists.


I'd be the last to do any such thing.

I'm only defending this portrayal in the show and the director's/writer's motivation as suiting the characters involved, against the opinion of it being some sort of promotion of rape.


----------



## DvlsAdvc8

MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut said:


> So you are actually arguing whether the scene was a rape or not. Forget the show for now and think about the director's sentence: "rape becomes consensual." Now replace the crime (rape) with anything else. "Murder becomes consensual," "physical assault becomes consensual," "gun shooting becomes consensual." Do these sentences still make sense to you?


These are apples and oranges. If woman gives consent the entire character of the act changes. If she's actually being raped, she would never give consent. The resistance, no matter how fierce is part of the power play, kink and disordered dynamic with these two characters. That the nature of the sex clearly becomes consensual by the end is proof the resistance was not real - it stands to reason a woman who REALLY thinks she is being RAPED isn't much into it no? So how do you explain the consent if you believe the resistance deeply genuine? It is clearly unhealthy disordered behavior - sex as an escape from emotional pain - but one that is not terribly uncommon. Jaime's actions in this context are like the man who forcefully hugs a distraught woman while she flails and hits him screaming "let me go!", only to wear herself out, calm and cry in his embrace and show of love. 



MRABoysHaveSmallPeanut said:


> If you, in fact think that rape can become consensual then your thinking is from the 70s when it was still OK for a husband to rape his wife. Don't use kink as an excuse as you might know very well that in role play everyone involved know what they are doing and they use safe words. If it's role play to begin with it has nothing to do with rape.


Sex that could be characterized as rape or rapey initially is incomeplete, that it is consensual at the end, shows it isn't actually rape and that Cersei's resistance wasn't real. I say again, this scene isn't rape. That's why people keep using the term "rapey" to describe it instead of outright calling it rape. Cersei's resistance isn't genuine, and Jaime knows it. Thinking this scene is rape shows a total lack of understanding of the characters. You agree that rape cannot become consensual, yet this scene becomes clearly consensual... so by your own definition its not rape. So what then was Cersei's resistance? It was token resistance - a distraught mother in a disordered relationship where sex is also a coping mechanism.

You're also confusing two different uses of word rape. Rape describing non-consensual sex, and the director's use of rape to characterize the forceful manner in which the sexual encounter BEGAN. Again, this is why people keep using "rapey". The scene wasn't actually rape... it was overcoming a distraught woman's resistance in a disordered sort of coping by sex - the latter of which is what is depicted in the book.

The layers here are more complex than your simple dismissal of it as some kind of promotion of rape or sign of acceptance of rape in our culture, or attack on me for pointing this out.


----------

