Triggering (Abuse): Is this rape?

[OMFG!You'reActuallySmart!]

Originally Posted by Lil'TeppyLala

I think people are too quick to report a guy. It seems like they don't realize the absolute devastation they can cause to a guy's life just by accusing them of rape.

Sure, if they rape you, go ahead and report them. I hope they rot in jail.

But experiencing regret after sex is not a reason for calling the police on a guy.

I was in one of the discussions on here once on ''Unwanted sexual advances.'' In it, one person said ''What do you do if a guy looks at you in a way you don't like?'' and I swear to god, half the chat room said ''You report him to the police or school authorities.'' I was shocked. Reporting a guy because he LOOKED at you because he was attracted to you and you didn't feel the same way back? Insanity.

I just got through finishing an upper-year criminology course that basically was showing how for the most part, the penal system sucks in North America. Part of the reason for this idea to report a guy from just staring at you is politicians and the media construe encourage people to call the cops whenever they don't like something and that criminals deserve very hard punishment delivered very quickly. I think it's ridiculous to call the cops because some guy looks at you in a wrong way. Problem is society has this view that only men rape other people and commit sexual violence or domestic violence. At least for domestic violence, in Canada there's a "zero-tolerance policy" so officers are legally required to make an arrest of at least 1 party without having to see any shred of evidence or hearing any detailed reasoning or accounts. Legally, the person calls domestic violence, the cops come and arrest the guy. Most cops however don't arrest them right away, they try to figure things out but at the end, they're legally required. Once the men get booked, they're effectively screwed because even if the woman raped the man, she's far less likely to get charged with rape, she may walk free while the guy (who was the rape victim) gets booked for rape or domestic violence, etc... .

A main issue around rape is what is consent? Some say if the victim is badgered enough, they may then agree to have sex but weren't really consenting. According to such views, they consented out of fear for what would happen if they didn't. Others would say it's consent because even though the person was badgered, they consented and didn't put up a fight while the sex was going on, so they obviously were accepting of it.

Legally it mentions context analysis but the problem is re-generating an accurate description of the context and some people may be dull as a rock when it comes to understanding certain contexts.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by The Man And XX Master

I just got through finishing an upper-year criminology course that basically was showing how for the most part, the penal system sucks in North America. Part of the reason for this idea to report a guy from just staring at you is politicians and the media construe encourage people to call the cops whenever they don't like something and that criminals deserve very hard punishment delivered very quickly. I think it's ridiculous to call the cops because some guy looks at you in a wrong way. Problem is society has this view that only men rape other people and commit sexual violence or domestic violence. At least for domestic violence, in Canada there's a "zero-tolerance policy" so officers are legally required to make an arrest of at least 1 party without having to see any shred of evidence or hearing any detailed reasoning or accounts. Legally, the person calls domestic violence, the cops come and arrest the guy. Most cops however don't arrest them right away, they try to figure things out but at the end, they're legally required. Once the men get booked, they're effectively screwed because even if the woman raped the man, she's far less likely to get charged with rape, she may walk free while the guy (who was the rape victim) gets booked for rape or domestic violence, etc... .

A main issue around rape is what is consent? Some say if the victim is badgered enough, they may then agree to have sex but weren't really consenting. According to such views, they consented out of fear for what would happen if they didn't. Others would say it's consent because even though the person was badgered, they consented and didn't put up a fight while the sex was going on, so they obviously were accepting of it.

Legally it mentions context analysis but the problem is re-generating an accurate description of the context and some people may be dull as a rock when it comes to understanding certain contexts.

I did write a really long post, but I figured I could say this pretty quickly:

I think it's pretty obvious how biased the law is against men.

[emma01]

Originally Posted by Marguerite

Ooo, wikipedia. *prepares to be dazzled*

Do you have a problem with the site? Because sucks for you if everything they say on there you question. I know sometimes it says rubbish - but since RapeCrisis came to talk to our school and said roughly the same thing, i believed them

Originally Posted by Marguerite

But then you go on to give another example 'no, no, no, no, okay fine. There is no 'absence of consent' there, the person clearly said 'okay fine', indicating that they have changed their minds from the original no, so your whole argument goes out the window.

Well since consent can be 'implied,' then I think that absence of consent can be IMPLIED too, and by the person having said no for the first few times, does that not imply they do not want sex?

Originally Posted by Marguerite

Persuasion is not forcible compulsion. Forcible compulsion is like me saying 'say yes or I'll punch you in the face' or 'agree to this or I'll kill your family'. 'Pleeeeaseee Emma I'm really horny. Come on, it'll be worth it. Don't you wanna have fun?' isn't forcible compulsion.

Depends on how she was persuaded I guess. And no, what you said isn't forcible compulsion, but can be intimidating if the person has already said no.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by emma01

Do you have a problem with the site? Because sucks for you if everything they say on there you question. I know sometimes it says rubbish - but since RapeCrisis came to talk to our school and said roughly the same thing, i believed them


Well since consent can be 'implied,' then I think that absence of consent can be IMPLIED too, and by the person having said no for the first few times, does that not imply they do not want sex?

Depends on how she was persuaded I guess. And no, what you said isn't forcible compulsion, but can be intimidating if the person has already said no.

I think the point is... you cannot go by implications. Simply by accusing a man of rape, you've ruined his life already. So honestly, if you've said the word "Yes" and agreed to sex then you've agreed to sex, even if he spent 5 hours chatting you up to the point where you finally say it.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

I think it's pretty obvious how biased the law is against men.

Were we discussing the family court system I could perhaps agree with you. On the subject of rape and serious sexual assaults, however, the statistics and case reports would suggest quite the opposite - if anything the most inherent bias is against women who are perceived both by juries and some members of the judiciary as being "loose women". There have been efforts to clamp down on such attitudes but it is by no means a resolved problem.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Were we discussing the family court system I could perhaps agree with you. On the subject of rape and serious sexual assaults, however, the statistics and case reports would suggest quite the opposite - if anything the most inherent bias is against women who are perceived both by juries and some members of the judiciary as being "loose women". There have been efforts to clamp down on such attitudes but it is by no means a resolved problem.

There's nothing we can legally do other than say that we don't need evidence. If you can't produce concrete evidence that someone raped you, you're dumb as fuck to think that anyone's going to believe you, and nobody should. The only way you can make these cases different is to find a reliable scientific way of telling, or to make it Guilty until proven Innocent. That's all there is to it. If there's concrete evidence that a person raped you, the courts have to accept that, but if there's no evidence, I don't know what you expect.. But on the other hand, the moment a man is accused of rape, his entire life is then over simply because there's anonymity for the accuser but not the accused, which is blatantly wrong; both should be held anonymous unless the accused is convicted.

[Pelios]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

There's nothing we can legally do other than say that we don't need evidence. If you can't produce concrete evidence that someone raped you, you're dumb as fuck to think that anyone's going to believe you, and nobody should. The only way you can make these cases different is to find a reliable scientific way of telling, or to make it Guilty until proven Innocent. That's all there is to it. If there's concrete evidence that a person raped you, the courts have to accept that, but if there's no evidence, I don't know what you expect.. But on the other hand, the moment a man is accused of rape, his entire life is then over simply because there's anonymity for the accuser but not the accused, which is blatantly wrong; both should be held anonymous unless the accused is convicted.

We have that in our court systems. Guilty until proven innocent in other words you have to prove to the court you are innocent. With is absolutely ridiculous. I can go on and accuse you of raping me and if you don’t have money to get yourself a good lawyer (because the ones the court assigns you are the worst there is) there is a chance of 99.98% you will end up in jail. You also talk about the anonymous of the accuser and accused there is no anonymous on either side they “try” to keep the accuser anonymous but they don’t do a good job. There was recently a case were a girl was accusing a guy of rape I don’t know why this case became such a big thing on a national level but everyone knew where the girl lived, her full name, and every aspect of her live, the same with the guy been accused.
This post is mostly to inform you about the difference between your court system and the one here.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

There's nothing we can legally do other than say that we don't need evidence. If you can't produce concrete evidence that someone raped you, you're dumb as fuck to think that anyone's going to believe you, and nobody should. The only way you can make these cases different is to find a reliable scientific way of telling, or to make it Guilty until proven Innocent. That's all there is to it. If there's concrete evidence that a person raped you, the courts have to accept that, but if there's no evidence, I don't know what you expect.. But on the other hand, the moment a man is accused of rape, his entire life is then over simply because there's anonymity for the accuser but not the accused, which is blatantly wrong; both should be held anonymous unless the accused is convicted.

With all due respect, that isn't what I was getting at - the problems in the court system when it comes to rape and sexual assaults isn't so much the evidential problem as historical problems with the admissibility of claims about past conduct which have nothing in the slightest to do with the matter at hand but can nonetheless discredit the victim in the eyes of the jury. That is to say nothing of sometimes inherent prejudice in juries and some judges. "Concrete evidence" for such offences often does not exist and I feel it is somewhat naive to suggest that it does, or indeed that it does for many offences. My point was more that aside from some notable examples - of which the rape accused anonymity issue is another good one - to claim the system is biased against men is not borne out by the facts in this area at least.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by dr2005

With all due respect, that isn't what I was getting at - the problems in the court system when it comes to rape and sexual assaults isn't so much the evidential problem as historical problems with the admissibility of claims about past conduct which have nothing in the slightest to do with the matter at hand but can nonetheless discredit the victim in the eyes of the jury. That is to say nothing of sometimes inherent prejudice in juries and some judges. "Concrete evidence" for such offences often does not exist and I feel it is somewhat naive to suggest that it does, or indeed that it does for many offences. My point was more that aside from some notable examples - of which the rape accused anonymity issue is another good one - to claim the system is biased against men is not borne out by the facts in this area at least.

Yes I think in some ways you're correct, women's claims are often just flicked aside even IF there's evidence for the case, which does need to be worked on. But on the other hand, on your point of the concrete evidence and my apparent naivety: If it doesn't exist, then that's that. Nobody will be prosecuted. It's a shame, but it's the only moral way for our courts to work. It is inherently immoral to prosecute someone with no evidence, even if they did that act. And that last bit, I assume you agree with me?
The system is biased against men, that mchu we know. I agree that it is also difficult for women to present a case to the courts, but I think that's less down to how the court itself works and more to do with the actual act (is there evidence etc).

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

But on the other hand, on your point of the concrete evidence and my apparent naivety: If it doesn't exist, then that's that. Nobody will be prosecuted. It's a shame, but it's the only moral way for our courts to work. It is inherently immoral to prosecute someone with no evidence, even if they did that act. And that last bit, I assume you agree with me?

Very much so - it's just the claim that such a thing as "concrete evidence" exists in the first place I'm not so sure about. There may well be concrete evidence that a certain event took place, or that a person was in the vicinity of the event at some point, but in a number of cases circumstancial evidence still ends up filling a lot of blanks unless you're fortunate enough to have eyewitnesses or CCTV to fall back on. Hopefully you can see where the inherent problem arises for sexual offences in that respect. I'm by no means advocating changing the evidential standard - such a prospect turns my blood cold - so much as highlighting the realities of criminal justice issues. It's by no means a straightforward issue.

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

The system is biased against men, that mchu we know. I agree that it is also difficult for women to present a case to the courts, but I think that's less down to how the court itself works and more to do with the actual act (is there evidence etc).

Again, asserting bias does not make it thus, and the evidence from court sittings suggests it is more a procedural issue than an evidential one. The Sexual Offences Act 2003 and its predecessors were meant to prevent such tactics being employed by defence counsel, but owing to lax wording they have not succeeded. Poor CPS practice also plays its part, as happened in one case down in South Wales. Finally, the police have to hold up their hands as the vast majority of case attrition happens on their watch (only c.12% of reported rapes even reach trial, far below the average). Basically there are a lof of problem areas which even now still need addressing.

All that said, I think we're taking this well and truly off topic so if you'd like to continue feel free to PM or VM.

[emma01]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

I think the point is... you cannot go by implications. Simply by accusing a man of rape, you've ruined his life already. So honestly, if you've said the word "Yes" and agreed to sex then you've agreed to sex, even if he spent 5 hours chatting you up to the point where you finally say it.

Fair enough you cannot go by implications if they say yes at first...but if a girl says no, no, no for a bit...the guy should take the hint and back off. If this was a real life situation - i'd say the guy only wanted the girl for sex.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by emma01

Fair enough you cannot go by implications if they say yes at first...but if a girl says no, no, no for a bit...the guy should take the hint and back off. If this was a real life situation - i'd say the guy only wanted the girl for sex.

I actually agree with you, morally he should take a hint and back off
However, I don't think it should be illegal to carry on trying and eventually getting a yes.
And I'd agree on that too, he obviously just wants sex, but that's also not, and should not be, illegal.

[emma01]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

I actually agree with you, morally he should take a hint and back off
However, I don't think it should be illegal to carry on trying and eventually getting a yes.
And I'd agree on that too, he obviously just wants sex, but that's also not, and should not be, illegal.

That is true, and I suppose it's rather hard, because the same situation could happen to one girl who is tough, and one girl who is really sensitive and can't stick up for herself, the sensitive one could be all worried and say RAPE RAPE RAPE whereas the tough one may just get over it.

Still - there is no harm in reporting it, telling the truth and the worst that can happen is the police tell you 'no it is not rape?'

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by emma01

That is true, and I suppose it's rather hard, because the same situation could happen to one girl who is tough, and one girl who is really sensitive and can't stick up for herself, the sensitive one could be all worried and say RAPE RAPE RAPE whereas the tough one may just get over it.

Still - there is no harm in reporting it, telling the truth and the worst that can happen is the police tell you 'no it is not rape?'

Except that if you make it an actual accusation of rape, you're ruining that guy's life. The sheer scale of damage and social damage caused to a guy through that is impossible for a woman to understand. I guess you can make an anonymous inquiry it should be okay.

[emma01]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

Except that if you make it an actual accusation of rape, you're ruining that guy's life. The sheer scale of damage and social damage caused to a guy through that is impossible for a woman to understand. I guess you can make an anonymous inquiry it should be okay.

I guess that begs the question - Is it better to have an actual rape not being reported, or a case that isn't rape being reported (the guy NOT actually charged though)

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by emma01

I guess that begs the question - Is it better to have an actual rape not being reported, or a case that isn't rape being reported (the guy NOT actually charged though)

I think the entire thing would be sorted if the police detained both parties, and kept their identities totally secret. The court etc would be done in secret, and if the man's innocent, it doesn't go on his record and his name isn't published. It's better for both people that way.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

I think the entire thing would be sorted if the police detained both parties, and kept their identities totally secret. The court etc would be done in secret, and if the man's innocent, it doesn't go on his record and his name isn't published. It's better for both people that way.

This I agree with - it's almost at the stage now where it's better (if such a word can be used) to be wrongly accused of murder and found innocent than to be wrongly accused of rape or sexual assault and found innocent. That doesn't make sense when you consider both murder and rape carry life sentences, so the reaction should be the same. Murder isn't exactly a pleasant business either after all. Anyway, as I was saying, anonymity would certainly be an improvement, although I hesitate at the secret court bit as that starts to introduce problems of its own - the better approach is to have reporting restrictions and restrictions on the public gallery like they do in youth court. That may well be what you meant in which case I apologise and agree, but I figured it's worth clarifying the difference.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by dr2005

This I agree with - it's almost at the stage now where it's better (if such a word can be used) to be wrongly accused of murder and found innocent than to be wrongly accused of rape or sexual assault and found innocent. That doesn't make sense when you consider both murder and rape carry life sentences, so the reaction should be the same. Murder isn't exactly a pleasant business either after all. Anyway, as I was saying, anonymity would certainly be an improvement, although I hesitate at the secret court bit as that starts to introduce problems of its own - the better approach is to have reporting restrictions and restrictions on the public gallery like they do in youth court. That may well be what you meant in which case I apologise and agree, but I figured it's worth clarifying the difference.

That's what I meant yes, thanks for agreeing Nice to see someone understands how wrong it all is!

[emma01]

Originally Posted by MonsterCosmonaut

I think the entire thing would be sorted if the police detained both parties, and kept their identities totally secret. The court etc would be done in secret, and if the man's innocent, it doesn't go on his record and his name isn't published. It's better for both people that way.

Oh yes now this I agree with - except if it really was rape - once he has been CHARGED with it, it should be made public...except I do agree with keep private until proven guilty