Reasons I'm glad I'm not female or american or both

[Psychosplodge]

Think this says it all.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/dk-production/images/8907/large/gop_rape_advisory.gif?1351126298

[Wolfshade]

Just wow.

[Psychosplodge]

Clayton Williams clearly has Daughters. :mad:

[Wolfshade]

Clayton Williams clearly has Daughters. :mad:

That is the attitude to rape from a different century. Though it could be worse, some countires you go to the police and report the horrific incident, you then get stoned to death for infidelity

[eldargal]

The emergency rape one wasn't as bad as it sounds, I read something about the broad context and she did seem to misspeak. Basically she was trying to say that the Catholic church shouldn't be forced to administer morning after pills to rape victims in their emergency rooms.

The rest of it though, yes, one reason I'm glad I don't live in a country founded by Puritan nutjobs we did our best to exterminate/banish here in the UK. There was a reason we booted the motherfudgers out.

[Mr Mystery]

Should have sent the Navy after the Mayflower....

[Sean_OBrien]

The emergency rape one wasn't as bad as it sounds, I read something about the broad context and she did seem to misspeak.

Same applies to the Ron Paul quote. A shot of Estrogen would prevent the implementation from taking place, and prior to the "Plan B" pill, it was common practice for Emergency Rooms to administer a shot of estrogen to rape victims in order to stop the implementation from taking place (and thereby stopping the pregnancy). Now, as opposed to a shot of estrogen they give a large oral dose of progesterone which ends up having the same effect.

The word "honest" is used in a manner similar to honestly, which would be "actually raped" in context. It isn't an attempt to classify one type of rape as honest and another type of rape as dishonest.

The rest need to be viewed within the context of the statements. While some reprehensible statements have been made (and not just by Republicans), quite often they are taken out of context from the rest of the statement or are otherwise a misrepresentation of the actual position held by the speaker.

For example, "Forcible Rape" is the legal term. It is used in the existing statutes and in order to maintain congruency within the legal language it needed to be used in the bill as well. If you read laws (civil or criminal) many of them sound rather bad on the first blush. However, much of the legal speak is required in order to actually specificy and classify the laws themselves.

The other example from within your list that jumps out at me is the quote by Roger Rivard. Sounds bad...but lets put some context to the sentence. Rivard was being interviewed by a newspaper and it touched on a story about a 17 year old student who was accused of raping another student in a band room at school. Based on the claims of the case (the girl reported the rape several months later when she found out she was pregnant but the male student claimed it was a consensual relationship which had ended) - dozens of students in the school provided testimony to support his claims. However, to the line in question - Rivard was recounting advice which his father had given him regarding premarital sex. The short of it is that you shouldn't do it. Not just because of the religious reasons, but also because a girl can go from a consenting partner to a rape victim very easily...especially if she is attempting to maintain her image to her parents (as was apparently the case of the news story which he was asked about):

"He also told me one thing, 'If you do (have premarital sex), just remember, consensual sex can turn into rape in an awful hurry,' " Rivard said. "Because all of a sudden a young lady gets pregnant and the parents are madder than a wet hen and she's not going to say, 'Oh, yeah, I was part of the program.' All that she has to say or the parents have to say is it was rape because she's underage. And he just said, 'Remember, Roger, if you go down that road, some girls,' he said, 'they rape so easy.'

"What the whole genesis of it was, it was advice to me, telling me, 'If you're going to go down that road, you may have consensual sex that night and then the next morning it may be rape.' So the way he said it was, 'Just remember, Roger, some girls, they rape so easy. It may be rape the next morning.'

[Psychosplodge]

It's the entire thing though, they would crucify our politicians for this. Careers are ended for much less.

[eldargal]

Teaching your son that girls will lie like that doesn't exactly change my opinion of him or his father, though. It may be true in some cases but it is just as true that many boys lie to girls to get them to sleep with them. There are many reasons why women do not report rapes (only around one in five are reported to the police), it could simply be she wanted to forget it happened until she found she was pregnant and could no longer do so.

I mean the guy is basically saying 'My father told me girls are liars so you shouldn't **** them 'cos you might get in trouble'.

[Psychosplodge]

I think the most common is

I Love You

[Wolfshade]

Also with all this porn about now-a-days it can influence some to think that women are always up for it

[Psychosplodge]

That's not proven and is the same reasoning that's used when one nutter who plays games or listens to marilyn manson goes on a rampage. It overlooks the overwhelming majority that haven't done anything, and attempts to absolve the nutter of responsibility for their actions.

[Wolfshade]

Sorry I was harking back to the BBC article on the subject

[Psychosplodge]

The should we tell kids what porn is thing?

[MaltonNecromancer]

The thing that is most disgusting is that the only people with anything truly valid to say on the subject are the survivors of rape, yet no-one listens to them. That's why I think things like Project Unbreakable are so critical.

Their main site is down at the moment (it's normally here - http://projectunbreakable.tumblr.com/) but for those of you with Facebook, it's all still up on their facebook page (here - https://www.facebook.com/projectunbreakable/photos_stream)

Before anyone without personal, first-hand experience of rape wants to make a comment about it, they could do worse than to just read what the survivors here have written. Every portrait photo is of a rape survivor. Each one writes a statement on a placard that is to do with their experience. It's harrowing, harrowing stuff, but I think absolutely essential to understanding why the nonsense these politicians have come out with is so damaging, ignorant, and evil.

[Sean_OBrien]

Teaching your son that girls will lie like that doesn't exactly change my opinion of him or his father, though. It may be true in some cases but it is just as true that many boys lie to girls to get them to sleep with them. There are many reasons why women do not report rapes (only around one in five are reported to the police), it could simply be she wanted to forget it happened until she found she was pregnant and could no longer do so.

I mean the guy is basically saying 'My father told me girls are liars so you shouldn't **** them 'cos you might get in trouble'.

Unfortunately, it is pertinent advice. Although you might feel it is saying that girls are liars - the reality is that, yes...sometimes girls are liars (not because they are girls - but because they are people and people lie) and in a he said-she said case of rape charges (especially in the cases like the one which he was questioned about), barring other evidence...jurors are inclined to believe the victim.

Even disregarding the potential for a lie to occur - sometimes they don't even have to claim rape for there to be a charge of rape. Many states (Wisconsin...the state which he represents for example) have laws which make it illegal for anyone under 18 to have sex (or "sexual touching"). If you are 18 and your girlfriend is 17 - you can and will be prosecuted under various rape and/or sexual assault laws.

http://www.jsonline.com/news/crime/tale-of-teenage-love-also-a-crime-story-782jcpi-133787908.html

Within the context though of the statement reposted by Psychosplodge - the statement wasn't by the person it was attributed by...and it wouldn't be much different if someone were to quote me quoting Hitler and attributing the quoted quote to me.

[Psychosplodge]

Was it not? I was taken from tumblr which was a repost of a website.
and my dash has stopped working ¬_¬ or I'd link the source, I'll try again later.

[MaltonNecromancer]

jurors are inclined to believe the victim.

Absolute nonsense. Absolute, complete nonsense.

In the UK, cases of historical child abuse have a conviction rate below 4%. The cases that make it to court represent less than 10% of all reported cases, as the police don't prosecute in cases where there is insufficient evidence - which includes almost all cases where the only evidence is the testimony of the victim.

In the Uk, the BBC pulled a Newsnight report on a deceased television presenter accused of paedophilia and rape, Jimmy Savile, because, in the words of the men in charge "We've only got the girls' word for it". Yesterday, it was reported that Savile had been accused by no less than 300 people. 300. Over a fifty year period. Who all stayed silent because they thought no-one would believe them.

I give you some concepts to look up, to better educate yourself:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Mansplain
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victim_blaming
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slut_shaming


Many states (Wisconsin...the state which he represents for example) have laws which make it illegal for anyone under 18 to have sex (or "sexual touching"). If you are 18 and your girlfriend is 17 - you can and will be prosecuted under various rape and/or sexual assault laws.

GOOD. Ages of consent are there for a reason. I'm sorry, but I can't even see why this is a complaint.

[eldargal]

Unfortunately, it is pertinent advice. Although you might feel it is saying that girls are liars - the reality is that, yes...sometimes girls are liars (not because they are girls - but because they are people and people lie) and in a he said-she said case of rape charges (especially in the cases like the one which he was questioned about), barring other evidence...jurors are inclined to believe the victim.
But it isn't, it's ab obscene generalisation drilled into someone at an impressionable age to help justify an outmoded view of sexual morals that helps to shift the blame to the victim. Pertinent advice would have been to wait until you're in a stable relationship with a girl you love, not 'don't **** girls 'cos they can lie and get you in trouble'. By all means discourage boys from cajoling girls into sex behind the bike sheds at school, but not by filling their heads with such vile nonsense. All it does is trivialise rape. I'm not saying cases like that do not happen, as you say, people lie, but that advice is still not good advice.

MaltonNecromancer is right, both here and in the US we have legal systems that put the rape victim on trial. If you had a drink, you're villified, if you're anything other than a blushing birgin, you're villified.

Some pictures from Unbreakable:
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-prn1/522775_504963996189187_1294290624_n.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-g-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/209297_491792794172974_1527477401_o.jpg
https://fbcdn-sphotos-b-a.akamaihd.net/hphotos-ak-snc7/392409_387802131238708_1219029590_n.jpg

The fact is we live in a world which overwhelmingly favours the males word in cases such as this. This fathers advice to his son simply helps reinforce that, it is sick and no better than the perceived comments about rape. Women do not rape easy.

[Wolfshade]

It is having seen the family dynamic of a child born of a consequence of rape and how that effects the child, the mother and father which convinces me that pro-choice is the only option.

[Sean_OBrien]

Absolute nonsense. Absolute, complete nonsense.

In the UK, cases of historical child abuse have a conviction rate below 4%. The cases that make it to court represent less than 10% of all reported cases, as the police don't prosecute in cases where there is insufficient evidence - which includes almost all cases where the only evidence is the testimony of the victim.

In the Uk, the BBC pulled a Newsnight report on a deceased television presenter accused of paedophilia and rape, Jimmy Savile, because, in the words of the men in charge "We've only got the girls' word for it". Yesterday, it was reported that Savile had been accused by no less than 300 people. 300. Over a fifty year period. Who all stayed silent because they thought no-one would believe them.

I recommend you double check your numbers. The conviction rate in the UK is actually north of 60%, which is roughly 4% higher than the conviction rate for crimes in general. The lower number is actually the attrition rate. The attrition rate refers to the percentage of reported crimes which are actually taken to trial. For normal rape (not specific to child abuse) the the conviction rate is 58% versus 57% in general and the attrition rate is 12%. Factors relating to the high attrition rate are hard to identify but largely they center around the victim no longer willing to press charges or the evidence not supporting the claims by the rape victim.

In the US, we have a similar but different set of numbers. The arrest rate for rape is around 25% across the country. Higher in areas and instances where a rape kit is used. Conviction rates in general for rape are roughly 70% while in instances where additional evidence is present (in the form of the rape kit) that rate jumps to 90%.

Conflating the numbers is not helpful, especially when they don't need conflating in order to prove a point. The reality is that, in the US, barring other evidence, jurors do side with victims. If even a little evidence is provided to support the rape allegation - it jumps to the point where it is nearly a slam dunk conviction.


But it isn't, it's ab obscene generalisation drilled into someone at an impressionable age to help justify an outmoded view of sexual morals that helps to shift the blame to the victim. Pertinent advice would have been to wait until you're in a stable relationship with a girl you love, not 'don't **** girls 'cos they can lie and get you in trouble'. By all means discourage boys from cajoling girls into sex behind the bike sheds at school, but not by filling their heads with such vile nonsense. All it does is trivialise rape. I'm not saying cases like that do not happen, as you say, people lie, but that advice is still not good advice.

I think there is a bit of a misunderstanding of what pertinent means. Pertinent is not good - it is needed. When I have friends down to the house here in Florida, I tell them to watch out for certain things. Areas where it is common to find sting rays on the beach and what certain jellyfish look like. It is pertinent advice. Telling kids about potential hazards in relationships (even if you don't think they are likely to happen) is pertinent advice. It is pertinent to tell a boy as much about pregnancy as it is to tell him of the other potential ramifications of engaging in sexual activity - including legal ramifications.

The FBI places the false reporting statistic for rape at 8%. Other studies are as low as 3% and as high as 40% (likely skewed for ideological purposes no doubt). However, given even the low end statistic - it is statistically more likely that you will have a false rape allegation against you than to be struck by lightning. Much like being struck by lightning though, you can reduce your odds by taking appropriate precautions (in the case of being struck by lightning - not playing golf in a thunderstorm is a good place to start for example).

None of that information trivializes rape, it doesn't make the crime any less traumatic or significant. It doesn't blame the victim. It is information which is valid and should be shared in order to educate the population.

[Psychosplodge]

60%? Where is that figure coming from? There's been an outcry in the last few years as it is so low compared to other crimes.

[eldargal]

Sean O'Brien is actually correct about the conviction rate, the issue isn't so much the conviction rate but the low number making it to trial given that only a fraction of rapes get committed. With only 20% of rapes being reported, 12% going to trial and a 60% conviction rate it means something like 90% of rapists get away with it.

[Sean_OBrien]

60%? Where is that figure coming from? There's been an outcry in the last few years as it is so low compared to other crimes.


Sean O'Brien is actually correct about the conviction rate, the issue isn't so much the conviction rate but the low number making it to trial given that only a fraction of rapes get committed. With only 20% of rapes being reported, 12% going to trial and a 60% conviction rate it means something like 90% of rapists get away with it.

Correct - which is a problem. However, it is important to actually look at the real numbers as they point to the problem. 60% Conviction rate is pretty good (better than average). The problem isn't with the prosecution. The attrition rate between reporting and trial though is high - that area needs addressed. Also the low reporting rate is a problem which also needs to be addressed.

The low number which is often tossed about confuses the issue and prevents the actual problems in the criminal system from being corrected.

It is also important to note that the low reporting numbers are not necessarily as straightforward as they might seem. There tends to be broad variations in the reporting rate based on age and other factors. In minority college students it is as high as 95% [unreported] based on some studies while in middle aged, middle classed females it is as low as 30% [unreported]. Much of that information can be used to actually help figure out a better way to address the specific problems with rape reporting.

[Wolfshade]

Ah yes the CPS aren't we thankful for them.

[White Tiger88]

The emergency rape one wasn't as bad as it sounds, I read something about the broad context and she did seem to misspeak. Basically she was trying to say that the Catholic church shouldn't be forced to administer morning after pills to rape victims in their emergency rooms.

The rest of it though, yes, one reason I'm glad I don't live in a country founded by Puritan nutjobs we did our best to exterminate/banish here in the UK. There was a reason we booted the motherfudgers out.

Ya thanks for that.....Now we have to live next to the crazy *******s.

[Psychosplodge]

Right, yeah I can believe that.
The CPS seem to drop all sorts of apparently clear cut cases.

[Sean_OBrien]

Right, yeah I can believe that.
The CPS seem to drop all sorts of apparently clear cut cases.

Like I said though - there is more than a simple...blame the guys in the wigs.

Quite often they are never presented with the case. Either the police decide that they don't have enough evidence to bring the case to the prosecutors or the victim decides to no longer cooperate with the investigation. Not sure on the specific path which a case follows within the UK (almost no experience with the British Criminal Justice system), but at least here - the prosecutor isn't involved till the police believe they have a case to bring to them, at which point the arrest warrant will be drawn up by the prosecutor. I assume it isn't too far removed from that over there.

[Psychosplodge]

The police provide their evidence to the Crown Prosecution Service who decides if it's in the public interest to proceed to trial. At least that's my understanding of it.

That's the English system, there is no unified British system. Scotland and Northern Ireland have their own laws/systems.

[Wolfshade]

Yes they do, a lot of things aren't "in the public interest", like being assaulted with video evidence...sigh

[Psychosplodge]

Amazing how council tax evasion always is though isn't it?

[White Tiger88]

Amazing how council tax evasion always is though isn't it?

How the hell did that come up?????

[Wolfshade]

I wouldn't know, though that reminds me a local council owes my 2p and has done for the last 5 years...

[Psychosplodge]

How the hell did that come up?????

Example of how the system views the seriousness of crimes by prosecution rates?
Fraud, tax evasion etc are often given far harsher sentences than violence, rape and even manslaughter.

[White Tiger88]

Example of how the system views the seriousness of crimes by prosecution rates?
Fraud, tax evasion etc are often given far harsher sentences than violence, rape and even manslaughter.

Point taken......Don't worry us Canadians are worse then you guys its only 5 years for a running a guy over well he is directing traffic.

[Wolfshade]

I can beat that.

Lorry driver runs into the back of a cyclist and crushes her to death, the police found no connection between her death and the actions of the driver. The driver pleaded guilty to the minor charge brought of driving with uncorrected defective vision. He was fined £200 pounds, given three points on his licence and permitted to carry on driving a tipper lorry. He continued to drive and was involved in a further three incidents before mowing down an concentration camp surivor as she crossed at a pedestrian crossing, he was then found guilty of one count of causing death my dangerous driving again not wearing his glasses. The sentence was 4 years imprisonment for the causing death by dangerous driving with disqualification from driving for 6 years following which he would be required to take an extended driving test. On the tachograph matter he was sentenced to 12 months imprisonment to be served concurrently (i.e 4 years in total)

Police later admitted the investigation had been substandard for the death of the cyclist and carried out a full review following the death of the lorry driver's second victim but the CPS again decided that no charge would be brought with respect to his first kill.

[Psychosplodge]

Ah but if she'd been on the pavement he wunt have got her...

or maybe he would looking at that.

[Wildeybeast]

The thing that is most disgusting is that the only people with anything truly valid to say on the subject are the survivors of rape, yet no-one listens to them. That's why I think things like Project Unbreakable are so critical.

Their main site is down at the moment (it's normally here - http://projectunbreakable.tumblr.com/) but for those of you with Facebook, it's all still up on their facebook page (here - https://www.facebook.com/projectunbreakable/photos_stream)

Before anyone without personal, first-hand experience of rape wants to make a comment about it, they could do worse than to just read what the survivors here have written. Every portrait photo is of a rape survivor. Each one writes a statement on a placard that is to do with their experience. It's harrowing, harrowing stuff, but I think absolutely essential to understanding why the nonsense these politicians have come out with is so damaging, ignorant, and evil.

Man I got through two lines of that and couldn't stomach any more.

Sean I have to disagree that telling boys they may get false rape claims against them is pertinent advice. Telling them to keep it in their pants and if they can't to suit up is pertinent advice. They do that, no pregnancy to initiate the bleated false rape claim. What kind of warped view of women is that kid going to have if dad is saying to him 'have fun dipping your wick, just beware that the lying ***** may try to eff your life forever'?

[Sean_OBrien]

What kind of warped view of women is that kid going to have if dad is saying to him 'have fun dipping your wick, just beware that the lying ***** may try to eff your life forever'?

I don't see that statement in the other statement - though I tend to be an overly rational person. I don't think telling a kid that there are potential legal hazards related to having sex is any more damaging than telling a kid not to go up and pet stray animals (and no - I am not making an equivalency between women and animals). If you pet that stray dog - it might bite you. It might have rabies. It might well try and kill you. Telling that to a kid won't make them afraid of dogs, just cautious around dogs that they don't know.

In the same way - telling a young son that he should wait until marriage (committed relationship) is good advice. Telling them that if they don't decide to wait they should wear a condom is pertinent advice. Telling them about all the fun diseases which are out there which go 'round and 'round again is pertinent advice. Telling them about pregnancy and the related issues is pertinent advice. In the same way, telling them about the laws is also pertinent advice. That includes the risk of having a false rape claim put against them and other related issues like statutory rape.

None of those issues should skew their view on women or sex anymore than similar advice related to other potential hazards. What will skew their view points is if they are careless and end up on the wrong side of a false claim (whichever manner in which it comes). If the young couple suffers through a wonky age of consent case like the one story which I linked to...how much fun will the holiday dinners be at the in-laws house? If they are wrongly accused (even if later acquitted) by a girl who is trying to cover up acts to her parents - do you think they will feel the same regarding relationships later? How about their friends and close associates? Do you think the claim against their buddy will impact their views on women and rape claims which they hear about in the future? What kind of a chilling effect do the false rape claims have on actual rape claims?

The wording could have been better perhaps - but I think I would have a hard time in determining the specific words which a 12 or 13 year old kid would be able to understand to the level the the potential gravity of actions that they may become involved in may pose both in the short and long term.

It becomes even more problematic with increased laws regarding inebriation relating to the ability to give consent (normally filed under a diminished capacity clause within the statutes). While there is a problem in that regard, nearly 40% of rapists are also intoxicated as well - and it is important to understand I am not attempting to justify rape - but when the definition of rape is extended to include a girl who is defined by the court to be too drunk to provide informed consent to have sex, it also needs to be extended to the male parties as well.

Again - me with laws again...but just a quick example, in North Carolina if a woman is legally intoxicated, she is legally incapable of giving consent to have sex. That would be a few drinks in a few hours time. If you have sex while she is intoxicated, it is second degree rape and carries a sentence of up to 17 years. There is no protection or consideration if the guy also is intoxicated, so if two people go out to a club and have a good time with drinks and dancing then go home and make whoopy - the guy is legally a rapist. Ignorance of the law is not protection from the law.

[Psychosplodge]

. If the young couple suffers through a wonky age of consent case like the one story which I linked to...how much fun will the holiday dinners be at the in-laws house? If they are wrongly accused (even if later acquitted) by a girl who is trying to cover up acts to her parents - do you think they will feel the same

I may be being naive here, but I think that may be something more prevalent to your culture than ours, which is possibly why it doesn't sound as bad to you.
Also I'm pretty sure our statutory rape age is lower than the actual age of consent.

[Wildeybeast]

I don't see that statement in the other statement - though I tend to be an overly rational person. I don't think telling a kid that there are potential legal hazards related to having sex is any more damaging than telling a kid not to go up and pet stray animals (and no - I am not making an equivalency between women and animals). If you pet that stray dog - it might bite you. It might have rabies. It might well try and kill you. Telling that to a kid won't make them afraid of dogs, just cautious around dogs that they don't know.

In the same way - telling a young son that he should wait until marriage (committed relationship) is good advice. Telling them that if they don't decide to wait they should wear a condom is pertinent advice. Telling them about all the fun diseases which are out there which go 'round and 'round again is pertinent advice. Telling them about pregnancy and the related issues is pertinent advice. In the same way, telling them about the laws is also pertinent advice. That includes the risk of having a false rape claim put against them and other related issues like statutory rape.

My issues is that by putting it alongside those other potential perils of sexual activity, you give it a level of equivalence and portray it (particularly to a young impressionable mind) as just as likely to happen as those things when it simply isn't. It's like warning a young driver of the perils of car jacking alongside all the other things they need to be aware of. Yes it happens, but it's low down on the list of things they need to be aware of.

I'm not sure how much contact you have with kids, but as someone who works with them daily, they are incredibly impressionable in many ways. Telling a small child not to pet dogs because they may bite them, will leave some of them with an unnecessary phobia. Likewise telling them them women are likely to make false accusations will give so them a distorted view and quite possibly turn them into the sort of adult who makes very poorly worded statements like 'women rape easy'. Furthermore, if the thought of having a kid or getting some horrible knob rotting disease isn't enough to put them off sex, telling them there is a chance they may get a false rape claim laid against them won't make a blind bit of difference either.

As to the drunkeness issue you mention there is a key difference. The women is too drunk to give consent yes, but the man, no matter how drunk, still makes a conscious choice to put his knob in there. It's a well established legal principle in this country, as I'm sure it is in yours, that being intoxicated is no defence against committing a crime. The guy gets no protection or consideration because he got himself into that state in full knowledge that it would reduce his capacity to make informed rational decisions.

[Sean_OBrien]

I may be being naive here, but I think that may be something more prevalent to your culture than ours, which is possibly why it doesn't sound as bad to you.
Also I'm pretty sure our statutory rape age is lower than the actual age of consent.

Possibly more prevalent. A lot of the issues arise with high school where the age of consent and the age of majority often end up becoming an issue when a boyfriend (generally speaking - though not always) is older by a grade or two than their girl friend.

Statutory rape laws vary from state to state and normally the core to the law in the US is the age of consent, however there are other aspects which are linked to the age of majority versus a minor regardless of the age of consent. The most common age of consent in the US is 16 - though just barely, 17 and 18 are almost as common. However if party A in a relationship is 18 or over (the age of majority) any relationship which they have with someone who is under 18 is considered unlawful carnal knowledge, which although not as serious of a charge as the statutory rape charges...they are a significant crime which will be with them forever (sex offender registries and all that). If you are lucky, you might get off with a contributing to the delinquency of a minor (which - as an employer...is not something I would want to see on the background check of a potential employee).


As to the drunkeness issue you mention there is a key difference. The women is too drunk to give consent yes, but the man, no matter how drunk, still makes a conscious choice to put his knob in there. It's a well established legal principle in this country, as I'm sure it is in yours, that being intoxicated is no defence against committing a crime. The guy gets no protection or consideration because he got himself into that state in full knowledge that it would reduce his capacity to make informed rational decisions.

Talk about being way off the mark. The reality is that men can be and are raped...by women even. The physiological reaction of an erection happens regardless of consent or even consciousness (literally has a mind of its own). Woman can and do in fact take advantage of men, generally through the use of alcohol or other intoxicants - though sometimes through physical force. Roughly 10% of rape victims in the US are men and roughly 2% of those are raped by women. To run the numbers based on the statistics that means that each year it is only around 160 per year...so, we shouldn't worry about that I guess.

Of course, female to male rape is even more under reported than male to female rape - some estimates place it as low as 7% of them actually being reported. Mostly because of opinions like "he got himself into that state in full knowledge that it would reduce his capacity to make informed rational decisions."

Double standard?

[Psychosplodge]

That's really messed up.

[MaltonNecromancer]

Roughly 10% of rape victims in the US are men and roughly 2% of those are raped by women.

Also male rapes are even more underreported than female, because of the widespread belief that either

a.) a man can't be raped. Which, as has been stated here, is a myth.
b.) once a man has been raped, he's somehow less of a man. Which is one of the most cruel, evil, evil lies perpetrated upon humanity.

The double standard that usually presents male rape as "funny" doesn't help at all.

Some further reading. Obvious trigger warnings for all.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_by_gender#Non-statutory_female-on-male_rape

Warning: very, very upsetting: www.guardian.co.uk/society/2011/jul/17/the-rape-of-men?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
http://www.hrw.org/reports/2001/prison/

It's also worth reading these:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleStandard

to familiarise yourself with the lies and cultural values that our cultural stories feed us, and which we begin to assume are "just the way things are". There's a lot of really interesting stuff there.

These two are of particular relevance:

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleStandardRapeFemaleOnMale
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DoubleStandardRapeMaleOnMale

[Wildeybeast]

I'm with Malton on this one. In our country, women cannot, by legal definition, rape men. Sexual assault yes, but rape no. They can and do get raped by other men. But not by women. When I was talking about men being drunk, I meant in terms of them raping women, not the other way round. In that situation, being drunk is no excuse.

[eldargal]

I do know what pertinent means. Telling your son that he shouldn't have premarital sex because he might get accused of rape is not pertinent advice. It is a statement that simply goes to reinforce the widely held view that women are deceitful creatures who use rape as a weapon to get what they want. It is simply a dsigusting attempt to force an outdated moral position down some poor, impressionable kids throat by taking an extremely unlikely possibility and making it sound like a certainty. It is no more pertinent than telling someone to wear clean underwear in case they get hit by a car to avoid embarassing the family at the hospital.


I'm not sure how much contact you have with kids, but as someone who works with them daily, they are incredibly impressionable in many ways. Telling a small child not to pet dogs because they may bite them, will leave some of them with an unnecessary phobia. Likewise telling them them women are likely to make false accusations will give so them a distorted view and quite possibly turn them into the sort of adult who makes very poorly worded statements like 'women rape easy'. Furthermore, if the thought of having a kid or getting some horrible knob rotting disease isn't enough to put them off sex, telling them there is a chance they may get a false rape claim laid against them won't make a blind bit of difference either.
This. It's not pertinent advice, it isn't good advice, it's taking advantage of the impressionable nature of a youth to implant absolutely heinous bullsh*t into his brain. He would be far better served by getting some actual good advice, this advice is just damaging.

[White Tiger88]

Now day's no one seems to give good advice because they are afraid a bunch of religious nut jobs will ride there ***** about anything they say. (Pun's all intended)

[scadugenga]

Correct - which is a problem. However, it is important to actually look at the real numbers as they point to the problem. 60% Conviction rate is pretty good (better than average). The problem isn't with the prosecution.

I'm sorry, Sean--but here you are absolutely incorrect.

Both my wife and I worked as crisis responders while we were in college. My wife was certified as a CASA (Court Appointed Special Advocate).

We dealt with sexual assault instances unfortunately quite frequently. Due to my position in the U, I primarily dealt with young adult (18-25) year old victims.

My wife, being CASA, dealt with all age groups, and had more children/adolescent cases than adult ones.

In almost every. single. case. the district attorney (or state's attorney, depends on the county/venue) was outright hostile towards the victim. Pressuring them to not file charges.

That's why you have an artificially high "conviction" rate. The DA only wanted a slam dunk case.

Why?

They didn't want their conviction rate to plummet. Because if it did, the odds of them winning re-election were slim to none.

So who got victimized twice over? The sexual assault victims. By the very people that should have been acting as their aegis. Just so they could keep their elected positions.

You want to know what's deep-down-in-your-soul degrading and insulting? Watching a DA verbally abuse a teenage rape victim for having the temerity to take a shower after being raped. Because it hurt his chances of getting a conviction. So instead, he tore a young woman to shreds because the only thing she could think of post assault was trying to get "clean."

I've had friends in college roofied at frat parties. Hell, one frat was found to be making date-rape drugs in a 50 gallon barrel. Were they prosecuted?

No.

They weren't even kicked off campus.

Eldargal's comment about rape convictions being maybe 10% seems actually a high-end guess--just given what I've witnessed on one college campus.

Trying to play the "pulling facts and numbers" game off the internet re: sexual assault conviction rates is nothing short of unconscionable.

[eldargal]

Yep, and once you go through all that and get to court (if you're 'lucky') every aspect of your character gets put on trial and is scrutinised. If you are anything that can be vaguely linked with 'loose living' by a jury you will be in for hell. From just being student to having tattooes, drinking, being uneducated, being a goth, you name it.

[scadugenga]

Yep, and once you go through all that and get to court (if you're 'lucky') every aspect of your character gets put on trial and is scrutinised. If you are anything that can be vaguely linked with 'loose living' by a jury you will be in for hell. From just being student to having tattooes, drinking, being uneducated, being a goth, you name it.

Unfortunately this is absolutely 100% correct.

I fervently wish it were not.

[MaltonNecromancer]

Yep, and once you go through all that and get to court (if you're 'lucky') every aspect of your character gets put on trial and is scrutinised. If you are anything that can be vaguely linked with 'loose living' by a jury you will be in for hell. From just being student to having tattooes, drinking, being uneducated, being a goth, you name it.

Yup.

Literally all you need to do is say "She'd been drinking" and that's it - he's off scott-free. It's [EXPLETIVE REDACTED] disgusting.

How anyone can claim that rapes are fairly and justly prosecuted in any way with a straight face is beyond me. It is a joke at best, and part of the problem at worst. Rape survivors are treated appallingly by the court system, and failed at every turn.

Also, Scadugenga? Please accept a high five from me for your crisis response work, and if you could please pass one on to your wife? That would be terribly kind.

[scadugenga]

Yup.

Literally all you need to do is say "She'd been drinking" and that's it - he's off scott-free. It's [EXPLETIVE REDACTED] disgusting.

How anyone can claim that rapes are fairly and justly prosecuted in any way with a straight face is beyond me. It is a joke at best, and part of the problem at worst. Rape survivors are treated appallingly by the court system, and failed at every turn.

Also, Scadugenga? Please accept a high five from me for your crisis response work, and if you could please pass one on to your wife? That would be terribly kind.


Noted and duly passed along, thanks!