[Closed] Rape

This is going to go well, isn't it.

Cougar if you think it is wrong for here please delete.

Can a womens behavior ever be seen as a mitigating factor?

No.

There, that was simple.

I think that millions of women could be asked this question and if a simple 'yes' or 'no' was requested then there will not be an absolute majority.

Edit: I read her interview in the Sunday Times.

I posted this on the 'women-only train carriages' thread the other day, and it's relevant here I think.

http://singletrackmag.com/forum/topic/women-only-train-carriages/page/3#post-7132612

[i]Victim blaming implies "it's your fault you were attacked; you deserve to be robbed; you were raped because you were asking for it" which are all bogus. No-one deserved to be beaten senseless, to be sexually harassed, everyone should be allowed to go about their business without someone else giving them a bad day.

However. We don't live in a perfect world. Whilst the onus shouldn't be on a victim to protect themselves from crime, the fact that crime is broadly carried out by criminals who care not for 'should,' it's therefore sensible to minimise that risk.

I've used this analogy before but, say I was in the pub and left my phone on the table whilst I went to the loo, and when I came out it was gone. Did I deserve to be robbed? No. Is it my fault it was stolen? No. Is there anything I could've done to mitigate risk? Wait, actually, yes there was. (Or as a more STW-friendly example; you might well have right of way but that won't do you much good when your bike's under the front wheels of a car.)

We should all be free to walk the streets, to take public transport without being harassed, whether we're female, male or anything else. But until we reach that utopia it's surely sensible to consider all options even if ultimately some of them are really poor ideas, and in the meantime take whatever steps we can to keep ourselves safe.[/i]

No.

I think what she said has some merit

Of course it does. Recognising that some situations are riskier than others isn't condoning rape.

[i]No.

There, that was simple.
[/i]

Or, yes.

Cougar speaks sense.

Cougar if you think it is wrong for here please delete.

With my <mod> hat on for a moment; I'm not one for censorship and nor is STW generally, so as far as I'm concerned the thread is fine so long as Wheaton's Law applies.

I'll go with. errrr. No!

[i] Cougar - Moderator
This is going to go well, isn't it.[/i]

Unlike the rest of us, this thread represents a yet to be determined degree of "work" for you.

But try not to be so pessimistic, have hope.
Members might just surprize us and get a good discussion going.
🙂

I was at Glasgow High Court last week as a potential juror on a rape case where the defendants special plea was "Consent by both parties".

Jury was picked and it was 13 men and 2 women. Straight away all the women in the non-selected jurors area starting quietly muttering about the fact that it was therefore biased towards the man (defendant).

I wasn't selected as a juror (thankfully) so don't know how the case turned out but i can imagine there must be loads of cases like this where proof is hard to come by and the result of the case could rest upon the split of woman/men.

Obviously there must have been some alleged proof otherwise the case wouldn't have made it to court but i still think these types of cases must be a nightmare for all (innocent) parties involved.

No. In my very own painful experience perpetrators will find any excuse be the victim woman, man or child.

The problem is blame is a percentage. In a car accident, often one person is 100% to blame. Sometimes both did something stupid that'd ordinarily not cause an accident, but combined they do, so blame is proportioned 50/50. Sometimes it's more nuanced, 70/30 or something like that. But always adds up to 100%.

When you start saying that a woman is X% responsible for what happened to her, which is what you're saying if you suggest that she shouldn't get into "risky" situations, then you automatically make the rapist less than 100% responsible for what happened.

If we're going to be all grown up:

Can a [s]womens[/s] victim's behavior ever be seen as a mitigating factor?

I think what she said has some merit but no blame should be put on [s]women[/s] the victim at all.

If what she says is true, then babies would never be raped. Old woman asleep in their nightdresses in their own home would never be raped.

She is mixing up cause with opportunity.

When you start saying that a woman is X% responsible for what happened to her, which is what you're saying if you suggest that she shouldn't get into "risky" situations, then you automatically make the rapist less than 100% responsible for what happened.

How about if they're both drunk, he invites her up to his flat, they make it to bed + no clothes + they've got started and she suddenly gets second thoughts? It's still rape, but to say she is completely blameless is not (IMO) correct.

Actually, mitigating - no - it doesn't make it less severe. Can the victims behaviour increase their chances of being raped - most definitely yes.

In her book, Hynde writes: “If I’m walking around in my underwear [b]and I’m drunk? Who else’s fault can it be?[/b] If I’m walking around and I’m very modestly dressed and I’m keeping to myself and someone attacks me, then I’d say that’s his fault. But if I’m being very lairy and putting it about and being provocative, then you are enticing someone who’s already unhinged – don’t do that. Come on! That’s just common sense. You know, if you don’t want to entice a rapist, don’t wear high heels so you can’t run from him.”

Emphasis mine for the stand out victim blame, but TBH the whole piece is so wrong, it's hard where to know to start

consent, it's like making a cup of tea...

The rapist always has to be 100% responsible, it's inconceivable for the woman to be at "fault".

I think people often get confused with the subtle difference between a woman doing something which could place part of the blame on her and taking/failing to take indirect actions which could have avoided her own rape. ie the difference between fault and mitigation of risk.

For example, a man is hiding in a bush on West Street. A woman walks past and the man rapes her. The man is of course at fault 100%.

Had the woman chosen to walk home on East Street then she would have avoided being raped. You CANNOT however suggest that she contributed to her own rape, but of course indirectly her actions led her to it, such is the randomness and complexity of life.

Now consider that West Street has a reputation for being full of rapists at night. Does her choice to walk home via West Street rather than East Street mean that she failed to fully mitigate the risk of being raped? Perhaps, but it still doesn't change where the fault lies - 100% on the rapist.

Women shouldn't be expected to fully mitigate the risk of being raped (i.e. living in a cave) and no fault should be connected to any failure to mitigate.

When you find a map clearly marking these streets that are full of rapists can I have a copy please ? If you can add a description of the rapists that would be helpful too. Thanks.

I read her comments as more being about blaming herself for what she suffered more than commenting on any other situation.

Has no one seen [url= https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Accused_%281988_film%29 ]The Accused[/url]?
It's a NO

Chrissie Hynde is wrong when she says "If I’m walking around in my underwear and I’m drunk? Who else’s fault can it be? "
The law is the law.
Violent crime is not the same as an accident.

When you find a map clearly marking these streets that are full of rapists can I have a copy please ? If you can add a description of the rapists that would be helpful too. Thanks.

It's a super easy to understand example, rather than trying to generalise every complex situation which can result in rape.

How about if they're both drunk, he invites her up to his flat, they make it to bed + no clothes + they've got started and she suddenly gets second thoughts? It's still rape, but to say she is completely blameless is not (IMO) correct.

At the point she says stop, if you don't stop, it's your fault. 100%.

That is the minimum right every human should expect from all others.

How about if they're both drunk, he invites her up to his flat, they make it to bed + no clothes + they've got started and she suddenly gets second thoughts? It's still rape, but to say she is completely blameless is not (IMO) correct.

This is absolutely insane to me. How can a man who is unwilling to stop putting himself inside you when you have said you don't want him to be any less than 100% to blame?

No.

Oldbloke beat me to it ^

Perhaps Hynde's remarks are rooted in her experience and how that has effected her for the rest of her life. I would take this into account.

NO.
Charlie Webster has it. Chrissie Hynde needs help and support to understand that she did nothing wrong and not to be lambasted for not fully understanding her position.
[url= http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/charlie-webster/chrissie-hynde_b_8076056.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067 ]http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/charlie-webster/chrissie-hynde_b_8076056.html?utm_hp_ref=uk&ncid=tweetlnkushpmg00000067[/url]

In related news, I've just stumbled across this.

https://www.amnesty.org.uk/actions/two-sisters-sentenced-rape-demand-justice-india-womens-rights

An unelected all-male village council in India has ordered that 23-year-old Meenakshi Kumari and her 15-year-old sister are raped.

The ‘sentence’ was handed down as punishment after their brother eloped with a married woman. They also ordered for the sisters to be paraded naked with blackened faces

Sometimes, I despair for humanity.

Shocking

For Gods Sake!! That can not be real??

Totally lost for words, and sickened.

The worlds got no chance really has it, when that is how some people think!! 😥

The worlds got no chance really has it, when that is how some people think!!

I wouldn't go that far. As awful as that kind of thing is I don't believe the majority find it acceptable behaviour.

Poor Chrissie Hynde. All those years blaming herself.

Poor Chrissie Hynde. All those years blaming herself.

Yup, that's what's so sad.

Rape is not an accident. If you don't wear a helmet and crash into a tree, you may well take some or all of the blame. The tree was not a fault. The bike manufacturer may be taking some blame if the bike badly setup or failed.

Rape is a crime against a person, committed by someone else. Whatever you wore, didn't wear, whether you were unconscious, infirm, frail, drunk, promiscuous, alone in the dark, etc etc etc...no. Just No.

[img] [/img]

IMO Cougars post sums it up pretty well and leading on from this:

Is hanging around with a bunch of people who wear badges saying 'I heart rape' and condoning this behaviour more likely to lead a women to possibly get raped? Yes.

Again, is dressing up in skimpy clothing, acting provocatively and getting hammered drunk in a dodgy part of town, more likely to lead a women to possibly get raped? Again sadly, yes.

No fault of anyone but the perpetrator, but the risk of said event happening is higher.

Increased risk of an event happening does not equate to a percentage of blame being passed onto the victim.

If I go skydiving without a parachute, knowing that I will die not wearing one, is it my fault? Yes, as A+B=C, no perpetrator or law (apart from gravity) involved.

What Kudos said.

Ever had a non-fault accident, on the bike or otherwise? The blame lies entirely with the other party but you still feel that if your road positioning had been better, it wouldn't have happened. It's still wrong, but I guess that's what CH was getting at?

OK ,boy meets girl at a party, both are drunk have they have sex and the next day she changes her mind and says I didn't give consent because of alcohol .
is that rape ?

kudos100 - Member
Again, is dressing up in skimpy clothing, acting provocatively and getting hammered drunk in a dodgy part of town, more likely to lead a women to possibly get raped? Again sadly, yes.

Is it really though? Any stats? Aren't the majority of rapes NOT in circumstances like that?

In any event, statements like this run the risk of being victim blaming, and take focus away from the crime itself.

I guess that's what CH was getting at?

Quite often these stories come about due to distortion in the reporting (again, see the Corbyn / trains drivel), but I think in this particular case she's just flat out wrong. Paraphrasing what she said but, "I was drunk and in my underwear, who else can I blame but myself" is just faulty thinking. It really is that simple. And if she's blaming herself for an attack, pretty tragic also.

OK ,boy meets girl at a party, both are drunk have they have sex and the next day she [b]changes her mind[/b] and says I didn't give consent because of alcohol .
is that rape ?

eh?

The only possible way to rape someone is to have sex without their consent (save for statutory rape).

If you had their consent and they then withdraw it, you must stop at that point otherwise you are now raping that person. All action until that point is legal.

If you had consent when you actually had sex with them, then they withdraw their consent the [i]next day[/i] then it cannot possibly be rape

is that rape ?

I think that's where it gets complex fettler, rape can encompass a very wide set of circumstances

While a woman's behaviour could never be regarded as 'inviting' or 'justifying' rape, there are certainly situations where a woman's behaviour could lead to the existence or denial of consent being far from a clear cut issue.

If you had consent when you actually had sex with them, then they withdraw their consent the next day then it cannot possibly be rape

The argument against that logic is, was she too drunk to reliably give consent?

Is it fine to ply a girl with drinks all night, to lower her inhibitions with the end goal of some horizontal jogging later?

How about just a couple of drinks? Or conversely, how about Rohypnol?

Thorny issue you've got there with your "cannot possibly" I'm afraid. At what point does "morning remorse" cross the line into "hey, you raped me"?

The argument against that logic is, was she "too drunk to reliably give consent"?
Thank cougar that's the point I was trying to make

The argument against that logic is, was she too drunk to reliably give consent?

The test is that, regardless of the amount of alcohol consumed, she was capable of making the decision at the time.

Entirely subjective and difficult to establish.

It's possible to be completely capable of giving consent at the time and then not even remember it the next day, such is the nature of alcohol.

Equally, someone could have a few drinks and due to intolerance be lacking in the ability to give consent quite quickly. You would hope that this would be quite obvious and most men would take this as a sign to not progress any further - however obviously this is not always the case.

Is it really though? Any stats? Aren't the majority of rapes NOT in circumstances like that?

In any event, statements like this run the risk of being victim blaming, and take focus away from the crime itself.

Did you bother to read the whole of my post or just chose to read one sentence?

Let me spell it out for you:

[i]Possible[/i] increased risk of a crime happening does not equate to any percentage of 'blame' being passed onto the victim.

Just like leaving your phone on the bar increases the risk of it [i]possibly[/i] being stolen, rather than being in your pocket. Fault is 100% with the thief/rapist/person who committed the crime.

You would hope that this would be quite obvious and most men would take this as a sign to not progress any further - however obviously this is not always the case.

To be honest, that's probably a better yardstick of guilt. Did the bloke think "she's a bit drunk, I'd best back off" or did he think "she's a bit drunk, fantastic!"?

OK ,boy meets girl at a party, both are drunk have they have sex and the next day she changes her mind and says I didn't give consent because of alcohol
is that rape ?

Yes it is, drunk people can't give consent. The answer to "come back to mine" is:

"No, your drunk, I'll get you home, call me when you wake up with that banging hangover and we'll have breakfast"

kudos100 - Member
Did you bother to read the whole of my post or just chose to read one sentence?

I did, seems you didn't read mine at all.

Is it really though? Any stats? Aren't the majority of rapes NOT in circumstances like that?

Regardless, that's a non sequitur. The majority of eye injuries aren't from spoons*, but jamming a teaspoon in my face is significantly likely to increase the risk of a cutlery-related ocular incident.

(* - I imagine, I've not actually looked it up. Shoddy posting, I know.)

Yes it is, drunk people can't give consent. The answer to "come back to mine" is:

This is incorrect (from a legal perspective anyway), although I agree it's different from a moral one.

Drunk people are capable of giving consent (otherwise, amongst other quirks, it would be difficult for them to legally become intoxicated in the first place).

Another scenario. Husband and wife, married a long time. Wife is in bed sober, husband comes home drunk, gets into bed. Wife initiates sex. Man is initially reluctant but he goes with it, he goes for the wrong hole. Wife asks him to stop but he doesn't straight away, she had to ask twice again and push him away. He has hurt her. Wife get's out of bed and goes to a friends to stay.

After discussion with friend, the next morning she reports husband to police for rape. He is arrested and charged with rape.

The husband has almost zero recollection of the incident.

[quote=peterfile ]

Yes it is, drunk people can't give consent. The answer to "come back to mine" is:

I like to make up increasingly complicated and unlikely situations in these threads too.

Pretty girl: Licking an ice cream.

Pervy bloke: "Hey baby, what else can you lick?"

Pretty girl: "Your blood off my fingers after I've sacrificed you to Satan".

Also, interestingly from the point of view of the effect self-blame has on it's victim, Chrissie always used to refer to her all-male band as girls, as in (before starting a song) "You ready, girls?". Odd.

sorry peterfile, I wasn't trying to provide a legal perspective. "I'm not a lawyer" etc etc

I was just suggesting a course of action that involves no rape... 😕

was a juror at a rape trial (in Scotland) where it was quite clearly stated, by the judge, that a drunk person cannot be considered to have consented.

Which raises the question: If two lesbian women are drunk and have sex are both guilty of rape?

a drunk person cannot be considered to have consented

Couple of things:

- there are degrees of drunk - my wife says I'm drunk long before I lose the ability to make decisions in law. It isn't (AFAIK) a blood alcohol concentration measure, it's a "did I know what was happening?" measure.

- in the UK at least, if A reasonably believes that B consents then A isn't raping B when B is drunk, as long as it isn't unreasonable for A to think everything is OK. But A doesn't get to think it's OK because A is too drunk to judge it right.

So if B is a habitual drinker who is probably going to be blacking out but hasn't lost the ability to form sentences, and A is a bit too pissed to realise that that's the scenario, A can end up, entirely without meaning to, having sex with someone who he's slightly too pissed to realise is far too pissed to consent. There's no doubt that's a rape in the UK, if it becomes a police matter. It's a moderately common sort of sex.

[edits for clarity]

consent, it's like making a cup of tea...

I always like a cup of tea. Usually end up making it myself though.

Just like leaving your phone on the bar increases the risk of it possibly being stolen, rather than being in your pocket. Fault is 100% with the thief/rapist/person who committed the crime.

Try explaining that to your insurance company, who could argue you hadn't taken sufficient care of the phone and had 'invited' the crime to take place.

Try explaining that to your insurance company

I believe this falls under "false authority syndrome." To wit, insurance companies are not lawyers, they are bastards.

OK ,boy meets girl at a party, both are drunk have they have sex and the next day she changes her mind and says I didn't give consent because of alcohol
is that rape ?
Yes it is, drunk people can't give consent. The answer to "come back to mine" is:

"No, your drunk, I'll get you home, call me when you wake up with that banging hangover and we'll have breakfast"

Serious question . How would that work from a legal perspective if they were both drunk surely neither would be able to give consent or does it assume that because the male has achieved an erection he has given consent ?

Which raises the question: If two lesbian women are drunk and have sex are both guilty of rape?

Nope, as rape can only be committed by a person with their own penis

A strange lacuna within the law that women don't seem to be up in arms at getting overturned in the name of equal rights.

Which raises the question: If two lesbian women are drunk and have sex are both guilty of rape?

Nope, as rape can only be committed by a person with their own penis

Ok, substitute gay men.

Serious question . How would that work from a legal perspective if they were both drunk surely neither would be able to give consent or does it assume that because the male has achieved an erection he has given consent ?

I was wondering similar.

Ok, substitute gay men.

Arguably, yes, they could be, because drunkenness is no defence.

However they may have a defence that they 'reasonably believed' they had consent, under the rules of it being goddamned common courtesy to return the favour.

How would that work from a legal perspective if they were both drunk surely neither would be able to give consent or does it assume that because the male has achieved an erection he has given consent ?

The Ched Evans case suggests that assumption is made. The girl had no recollection if she had consented or not. AFAIK CHed Evans was also drunk. On that basis the jury decided that a) it was rape and b) the male drunk person was the culprit and not the victim.

Which is why in the case of teachers bonking students, female teachers get charged with indecent/sexual assault, the men; statutory rape.

I was a juror at a rape trial (in Scotland) where it was quite clearly stated, by the judge, that a drunk person cannot be considered to have consented.

It's not that clear cut though.

Define drunk.

If I take a girl out for one drink and then we sleep together, is she deemed to be incapable of consent and I have raped her?

What about 3 drinks?

What about 10 drinks?

At what point is she "drunk". At what point did her level of drunkenness affect her ability to give consent? The law doesn't try to tell us. It's completely subjective. A court will make that decision based on all available evidence.

The law (in Scotland) says:

is incapable of consenting because of the effect of alcohol or any other
substance

The test is "incapable of consenting", because of the effect of alcohol. It is possible to be under the effects of alcohol and capable of consent. It must be this way otherwise we would all lose the legal ability to consent after a beer.

In England (and Scotland too I'm sure) the court will look at all circumstances surrounding the event to try to establish whether the level of drunkenness was sufficient that they were incapable of consent.

If two lesbian women are drunk and have sex are both guilty of rape?

Hmmm, I'm going to have to think about that, (for quite a while) 8)

In England (and Scotland too I'm sure) the court will look at all circumstances surrounding the event to try to establish whether the level of drunkenness was sufficient that they were incapable of consent.

This is basically what I was trying to point out earlier - it's not always 100% clear cut, and to say the victim is 100% blameless is not IMO correct.

Nope, as rape can only be committed by a person with their own penis

https://www.rt.com/news/hairdresser-turns-robber-into-sex-slave/

Not highly probable, but it is possible........

Consent. It's really very simple as this video shows.

http://magazine.good.is/articles/tea-never-looked-so-good