Triggering (Abuse): Ben Rothlesberger's Rape Case

[TigerTank77]

So, for anyone not up to speed, a woman accused Ben Rothlesberger (quarterback for the Steelers) of raping her. And recently, they just settled the civil case for a couple hundred grand.

http://www.sbnation.com/nfl/2012/1/2...l-suit-settles
http://www.faniq.com/article/Ben-Roe...-2008--2603752

I know this is probably going to start a huge fucking fire, but here's my thought on this.

She's lying to extort him for money.

There was absolutley no proof that she was raped, other than her and her friend's testimony. There were no criminal charges filed, and there's no criminal suit. Instead, it went straight to civil court and essentially became a money issue. From the second link, it was even announced that all parties had come to an agreement, and that again, no punishments were being doled out.

It's so fucking obvious, I'm surprised they agreed to settle.

I'm not saying all women who accuse a man of rape are lying, but Jesus, the fucking sexism is astounding. Is this really all it takes? Does due process not mean anything when it comes to women accusing men of rape anymore?

"But if he's innocent, then why would he settle?"

Because in a world where accusations alone can ruin your career, he had a lot to lose.

Blah, thoughts?

[thebigmole]

I completely agree with you. If I was raped you bet your ass the bastard would be facing criminal charges. The fact that it was only ever a money issue pretty much proves that well, it was only ever a money issue and not one of rape.

[forfrosne]

DUDE! YES! THIS IS SOMETHING I'VE BEEN RANTING AND RAVING ABOUT ON HERE FOR YEARS!

The overpowering sexism present in today's law system against men is ridiculous. Nothing more than an accusation of rape is needed and a man's career is over..

Thankyou for being one of the few people on this forum who agrees with me that there is massive sexism in the cases of rape accusations. Also I'm not denying that many women have issues with getting their rapists convicted, however this is almost always because they fail to provide sufficient evidence, so it's justified that they are not convicted. I feel like the best way to solve this would be anonymity for both participants - if a conviction is decided upon then the name may be released publicly, however if he/she is declared Not Guilty or Innocent then the name remains anonymous. It's the only fair way to do things.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

DUDE! YES! THIS IS SOMETHING I'VE BEEN RANTING AND RAVING ABOUT ON HERE FOR YEARS!

The overpowering sexism present in today's law system against men is ridiculous. Nothing more than an accusation of rape is needed and a man's career is over..

Thankyou for being one of the few people on this forum who agrees with me that there is massive sexism in the cases of rape accusations. Also I'm not denying that many women have issues with getting their rapists convicted, however this is almost always because they fail to provide sufficient evidence, so it's justified that they are not convicted. I feel like the best way to solve this would be anonymity for both participants - if a conviction is decided upon then the name may be released publicly, however if he/she is declared Not Guilty or Innocent then the name remains anonymous. It's the only fair way to do things.

Oh Cosmo <3

[WashoutThePain]

I think it's impossible for someone to comment on what they would do if they were raped because you can't predict how you would actually feel if it happened. Therefore, just because it ended up being a money-thing doesn't mean it was a lie. Maybe the female couldn't emotionally handle pressing different charges, or going to court. Maybe having him PAY for what he did was the closure she needed.

Disbelief is just another reason why women don't speak up... why rapists go free.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by Santa

I think it's impossible for someone to comment on what they would do if they were raped because you can't predict how you would actually feel if it happened. Therefore, just because it ended up being a money-thing doesn't mean it was a lie. Maybe the female couldn't emotionally handle pressing different charges, or going to court. Maybe having him PAY for what he did was the closure she needed.

Disbelief is just another reason why women don't speak up... why rapists go free.

You mean people don't automatically believe their claims?! You mean they actually have to provide concrete evidence that the accused actually is guilty?! THAT'S MONSTROUS, THE SYSTEM IS CLEARLY FLAWED, CHANGE IT SO THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY BY DEFAULT IMMEDIATELY!

[WashoutThePain]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

You mean people don't automatically believe their claims?! You mean they actually have to provide concrete evidence that the accused actually is guilty?! THAT'S MONSTROUS, THE SYSTEM IS CLEARLY FLAWED, CHANGE IT SO THE ACCUSED ARE GUILTY BY DEFAULT IMMEDIATELY!

That's not what I said.... at all? I simply said we shouldn't just automatically disbelieve someone if we think their actions don't make sense. It's hard to understand trauma, as everyone has different reactions to things. No one reaction is "wrong".

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by Santa

That's not what I said.... at all? I simply said we shouldn't just automatically disbelieve someone if we think their actions don't make sense. It's hard to understand trauma, as everyone has different reactions to things. No one reaction is "wrong".

I'm sorry but that absolutely is what you said, even if it's not what you believe. By default, the accused is not guilty. it is up to her to prove that she was raped. If she cannot, then you cannot reasonably expect the accused to be considered Guilty unless you are proposing that we either lower the threshold of evidence so that it's very easy to have someone convicted for rape or that they are guilty by default.

[Coffee.]

Eh. I'm split about this. I see what you mean, because of the position of fame and money he is in. However, statistically, women do not lie about being raped. Plus, also with his position of fame and money, he can get away with anything because he could always just pay his way out. So I don't know. Don't really care either, he payed his way out, he's happy and out of jail, she's happy and got money. Nobody really lost, it's not like he doesn't have enough money.

And statistically, very few rapes ever go to court, and very few rapists actually are convicted. I'm not seeing where this extreme sexism is coming from. I think there is a sexism assuming that all rape victims are women, and that all rapists are men? But I don't think policemen go out trying to get somebody convicted because he's a man? I don't really know what you guys are trying to say by using the word "sexism."

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

I'm sorry but that absolutely is what you said, even if it's not what you believe. By default, the accused is not guilty. it is up to her to prove that she was raped. If she cannot, then you cannot reasonably expect the accused to be considered Guilty unless you are proposing that we either lower the threshold of evidence so that it's very easy to have someone convicted for rape or that they are guilty by default.

Bullshit. Utter, utter bullshit. That isn't remotely what Amy said, and frankly twisting her words to that extent is below you. People can choose not to press forward with court cases for all manner of reasons, particularly with those which are highly emotive issues, and a lot of them have nothing to do with the veracity of the claims. I would strongly urge you to do some more research in future before making such sweeping claims.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Bullshit. Utter, utter bullshit. That isn't remotely what Amy said, and frankly twisting her words to that extent is below you. People can choose not to press forward with court cases for all manner of reasons, particularly with those which are highly emotive issues, and a lot of them have nothing to do with the veracity of the claims. I would strongly urge you to do some more research in future before making such sweeping claims.

Disbelief is just another reason why women don't speak up... why rapists go free.

She is stating that the reason rapists go free is that we do not believe those who accuse others of rape without evidence. That was my interpretation of it anyway. It seemed to me as though she was blaming the low rates of imprisonment of accused rapists on the fact that we do not automatically believe them; disbelief is the view we hold by default, and rightly so, anything other than disbelief and the accused is guilty by default.

[WashoutThePain]

[font="Comic Sans MS"][color="Indigo"][size="2"]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

She doesn't have to accept the settlement. If she really was raped, would him paying her really be enough for her? I don't think so.



She is stating that the reason rapists go free is that we do not believe those who accuse others of rape without evidence.

1. How do you know what's enough for her? Or for anyone, but yourself?

2. I said people disbelieving women or men who talk about being raped make it harder for others to come forward about their own experiences of rape or sexual assault. Therefore, SOME rapists are not prosecuted.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by Santa

1. How do you know what's enough for her? Or for anyone, but yourself?

I had meant to refrain from engaging in two debates at the same time but I'll respond anyway.

The short answer is that I don't, however given that rape is such a traumatising experience I find it difficult to believe that she would be happy with financial compensation for it. [retracted as I expanded and explained this opinion later]

Originally Posted by Santa

2. I said people disbelieving women or men who talk about being raped make it harder for others to come forward about their own experiences of rape or sexual assault. Therefore, SOME rapists are not prosecuted.

I agree that it our distrust of those who claim to have been raped makes it more unlikely for women to come forward, however let me explain why I think that this is not necessarily an issue.

We disbelieve the claims of the prosecution in court by default (although I suppose it's arguable we're more neutral than disbelief) if a man is accused of murder, why should it be any different for rape? It's a sensitive issue because the moment you accuse a man of rape his life is over, and so you have to have an iron-cast case for doing it in the first place, so it's definitely looked upon with more scrutiny. If the result of us not believing the prosecution by default is that fewer women report being raped then unfortunately that's something they'll have to deal with or find alternate solutions to; our legal system is based upon the idea of being innocent until proven guilty, accusations of rape do not exceed this rule.

Oh and sorry if I come across as grumpy or rude, I have no bad feelings toward any of you, you've just caught me at a bad time if I'm honest. I think I'll refrain from replying until I'm in a better mood.

[WashoutThePain]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

I had meant to refrain from engaging in two debates at the same time but I'll respond anyway.

The short answer is that I don't, however given that rape is such a traumatising experience I find it difficult to believe that she would be happy with financial compensation for it. Further, if he actually did rape her, then she's a horrible person for allowing him to walk away innocent without a fight and potentially rape another person.



I agree that it our distrust of those who claim to have been raped makes it more unlikely for women to come forward, however let me explain why I think that this is not necessarily an issue.

We disbelieve the claims of the prosecution in court by default (although I suppose it's arguable we're more neutral than disbelief) if a man is accused of murder, why should it be any different for rape? It's a sensitive issue because the moment you accuse a man of rape his life is over, and so you have to have an iron-cast case for doing it in the first place, so it's definitely looked upon with more scrutiny. If the result of us not believing the prosecution by default is that fewer women report being raped then unfortunately that's something they'll have to deal with or find alternate solutions to; our legal system is based upon the idea of being innocent until proven guilty, accusations of rape do not exceed this rule.

1. So anyone who doesn't report or press charges on anyone who raped/ sexually assaulted them, is horrible? Is that what you're saying?

2. I was not talking about the court having disbelief in the situation. Sure, OBVIOUSLY, there needs to be evidence. But having a close friend, parent, teacher or whoever NOT believe you, is completely different.

[Coffee.]

Although a rather broad statistic, between 1.5% and 45% of all rapes that are reported are unfounded.

{Source 1} {Source 2}

Well, uh, seeing that your statistics come from wikipedia, which is just a bujumble of different statistics from different countries, and the other one is a blog that much of their statistics come from over ten years ago, I'm not sure you have a case. Sorry. Also, these are unfounded. That means they weren't necessarily untrue, they were never proven. That means quite a lot of things, from not enough evidence. So even if those statistics are true, what exactly does that prove? Does it prove that they were all lying to get money?

She doesn't have to accept the settlement. If she really was raped, would him paying her really be enough for her? I don't think so.

I assume this is from your experience of being raped. Because I'm so sorry if that happened and I completely understand that if you want court value justice to put your rapist in jail, and that being your personal experience, I'm glad you pursued justice. If not, until you are put in this situation, I think you have very little of the right to say what you wouldn't or wouldn't do. From somebody with experience, I know that you really never want to see this person again, and along with having to deal with months of court dates, having every word that comes out of your mouth being attached by a prosecutor, and having to relive the experience every time you tell your story, very few rape victims ever even report it because it's too much to deal with. Many people often take back their accusations because they don't want to go through with it, these being cast as "untrue," although they really aren't. I don't think these should be in court, but I'm just saying it does not take away from the truth of the actual rape. I'm not even saying she was raped. But I'm giving you a reason why accepting money may just be easier than actually having to go through the full court experience.

If they don't go to court, then how do we know they ever occurred?

Accusations. Also, people have done surveys of people about their experience with sexual assault, and a good amount of people get sexually assaulted and never report it to authorities.

Very few of those who are accused of being a rapist are convicted. There's a huge difference.

No, very few rapists in general. Like I said before, in surveys, they find many go unreported. But as you said, in your own words, very few accused are convicted. That is true as well, Doesn't mean that all the accusations are not true. Sometimes, they do not have enough evidence, which understandably the rapist is not put into jail. But it doesn't take away from the truth value of the rape.

That's before a decision is reached. That's just by being associated and accused of being a rapist, and that is why we need to give them anonymity unless a Guilty verdict is reached.

I agree with you. It should be anonymous until a guilty sentence, to protect the innocence of both the rapist and the rape victim.

I just really don't like victim blaming, and that's what this culture is full of. People are told that if you don't have evidence you were raped, you can't get help. Even if you don't have evidence, you have the right to report it so that you can get the counseling and help that you need. I do not think that we should try to jail people for rape without enough evidence, you must be proven guilty before you are jauled, and I am for that right. But we need to stop making somebody feel guilty because they showered after their rape so it "Really didn't happen" or "You didn't report being raped by your father at six years old? It didn't happen." People need help after they are raped, and that may not mean wanting to see their rapist jailed, it may just mean getting counseling, and if they choose to bring it to court, just because they are only going for a monetary value does automatically mean it didn't happen.

I don't think you have a lot to worry about if you ask consent from your god damn partner.

*All quotes from Cosmo, but I'm terrible at setting up quotes so I just gave up.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

She is stating that the reason rapists go free is that we do not believe those who accuse others of rape without evidence. That was my interpretation of it anyway. It seemed to me as though she was blaming the low rates of imprisonment of accused rapists on the fact that we do not automatically believe them; disbelief is the view we hold by default, and rightly so, anything other than disbelief and the accused is guilty by default.

I underlined that word in your post, because this is where I think you're going wrong. Amy actually said that disbelief is "yet another reason", implying more than one reason and therefore that it is a reason as opposed to the reason. Testimonies not being taken seriously does lead to a sizeable amount of case attrition, so it is not a claim without merit.

[Coffee.]

Victim blaming [n]
Ways of thinking about the causes of criminal victimization which seek explanations from the individual victim’s conduct and the victim’s relationship with the offender, rather than looking for wider social factors which help to explain victimization. In the context of police investigations, victim blaming can take the form of disbelieving the victim’s report of a crime being committed, or giving some types of incident lower priority on the grounds that the victim is less deserving than others.

Example:

Originally Posted by Cosmo

she's a horrible person for allowing him to walk away innocent without a fight and potentially rape another person.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by Santa

1. So anyone who doesn't report or press charges on anyone who raped/ sexually assaulted them, is horrible? Is that what you're saying?

I'll take that back. I spoke rashly and I did not mean what I said.

Originally Posted by Santa

2. I was not talking about the court having disbelief in the situation. Sure, OBVIOUSLY, there needs to be evidence. But having a close friend, parent, teacher or whoever NOT believe you, is completely different.

What is the solution to the problem?

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

Well, uh, seeing that your statistics come from wikipedia, which is just a bujumble of different statistics from different countries, and the other one is a blog that much of their statistics come from over ten years ago, I'm not sure you have a case. Sorry. Also, these are unfounded. That means they weren't necessarily untrue, they were never proven. That means quite a lot of things, from not enough evidence. So even if those statistics are true, what exactly does that prove? Does it prove that they were all lying to get money?

There are citations at the bottom of all Wikipedia articles. They are valid. I also don't believe rates of rape have significantly changed in the past 10 years. However you have a good point I have no response to on your last sentence, they can be interpreted in many different ways.

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

I assume this is from your experience of being raped. Because I'm so sorry if that happened and I completely understand that if you want court value justice to put your rapist in jail, and that being your personal experience, I'm glad you pursued justice. If not, until you are put in this situation, I think you have very little of the right to say what you wouldn't or wouldn't do. From somebody with experience, I know that you really never want to see this person again, and along with having to deal with months of court dates, having every word that comes out of your mouth being attached by a prosecutor, and having to relive the experience every time you tell your story, very few rape victims ever even report it because it's too much to deal with. Many people often take back their accusations because they don't want to go through with it, these being cast as "untrue," although they really aren't. I don't think these should be in court, but I'm just saying it does not take away from the truth of the actual rape. I'm not even saying she was raped. But I'm giving you a reason why accepting money may just be easier than actually having to go through the full court experience.

Well if you have been through this then I'm very sorry, and while I understand the reasoning as it's very human, I'm afraid I still believe that anyone who is sexually assaulted should press charges as far as possible. It's their responsibility to stop the criminal doing the same thing again.

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

Accusations. Also, people have done surveys of people about their experience with sexual assault, and a good amount of people get sexually assaulted and never report it to authorities.

Accusations are meaningless without evidence, they cannot and should not be presumed to be true.

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

No, very few rapists in general. Like I said before, in surveys, they find many go unreported. But as you said, in your own words, very few accused are convicted. That is true as well, Doesn't mean that all the accusations are not true. Sometimes, they do not have enough evidence, which understandably the rapist is not put into jail. But it doesn't take away from the truth value of the rape.

All rapists who are proven to be so are convicted. The problem is that very few of those accused of being rapists are actually proven to be so, even though many of them actually are. I also agree with your last bit, however if they have no evidence then we have no reason to believe.

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

I agree with you. It should be anonymous until a guilty sentence, to protect the innocence of both the rapist and the rape victim.

I just really don't like victim blaming, and that's what this culture is full of. People are told that if you don't have evidence you were raped, you can't get help. Even if you don't have evidence, you have the right to report it so that you can get the counseling and help that you need. I do not think that we should try to jail people for rape without enough evidence, you must be proven guilty before you are jailed, and I am for that right. But we need to stop making somebody feel guilty because they showered after their rape so it "Really didn't happen" or "You didn't report being raped by your father at six years old? It didn't happen." People need help after they are raped, and that may not mean wanting to see their rapist jailed, it may just mean getting counseling, and if they choose to bring it to court, just because they are only going for a monetary value does automatically mean it didn't happen.

I don't think you have a lot to worry about if you ask consent from your god damn partner.

*All quotes from Cosmo, but I'm terrible at setting up quotes so I just gave up.

The rest we can agree upon. I really wish there was a better system to prove rapists to be rapists, as they really are the lowest scum on the planet. Also, I too find the quoting system a bit of a nightmare!

Ways of thinking about the causes of criminal victimization which seek explanations from the individual victim’s conduct and the victim’s relationship with the offender, rather than looking for wider social factors which help to explain victimization. In the context of police investigations, victim blaming can take the form of disbelieving the victim’s report of a crime being committed, or giving some types of incident lower priority on the grounds that the victim is less deserving than others.

I think you'll find my reasoning, although I don't agree with it anymore as I see how heartless it was, did not fall under victimisation. I did not attempt to justify her being raped, nor ignore social factors that explain it. I did not automatically believe she was lying and I did not give the incident lower priority.

[WashoutThePain]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

It's their responsibility to stop the criminal doing the same thing again.

HAHAHA IS THIS A JOKE?!

Sure, let's make a rape victim responsible for her/his offenders future actions.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by Santa

HAHAHA IS THIS A JOKE?!

Sure, let's make a rape victim responsible for her/his offenders future actions.

They have knowledge of their capacity, willingness and likeliness to commit the crime again, I hardly find it unreasonable to say that they should take it to court to stop anything happening again. While I would not blame them for not doing so, they can hardly complain that their rapist walks free if they do not take it to court.

[WashoutThePain]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

They have knowledge of their capacity, willingness and likeliness to commit the crime again, I hardly find it unreasonable to say that they should take it to court to stop anything happening again. While I would not blame them for not doing so, they can hardly complain that their rapist walks free if they do not take it to court.

So a victim cannot be upset that her rapist goes free say... because there wasn't enough evidence to take the offender to court? Just because a victim does NOT take her offender to court, doesn't mean she can't be upset he's out galavanting around town.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by Santa

So a victim cannot be upset that her rapist goes free say... because there wasn't enough evidence to take the offender to court? Just because a victim does NOT take her offender to court, doesn't mean she can't be upset he's out galavanting around town.

You and two other users have just stated many times why they may not take an offender to court, the most significant reason, which I fully understand, is the emotional trauma and stress of going through the court process. So no, it's not necessarily because there's not enough evidence; there may be mountains of the stuff. A victim shouldn't be upset that her rapist goes free if she chooses not to take him to court because she doesn't want to go through the process if she has the evidence to prove it. However if there is not enough evidence to prove that it happened even though it did then I have the utmost sympathy with her as that must be one of the most torturous feelings one can ever feel. But, as I said and maintain, she has the choice to go through the courts, that's always open.

[Coffee.]

Originally Posted by Cosmo

There are citations at the bottom of all Wikipedia articles. They are valid. I also don't believe rates of rape have significantly changed in the past 10 years.

I'm not saying it's bad because it's wikipedia, I'm saying they are bad because they do not have an exact country in which we are talking about. From our own standpoint, we are talking about first world countries with higher court systems. Looking at these statistics, they are taken from countries around the world, some of them with much higher rates of accusation against rape victims. Many countries see being raped as a crime. I would just like to see SPECIFIC statistics for countries that we are more talking about, such as the UK, the US, Australia, ext.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

It's their responsibility to stop the criminal doing the same thing again.

Actually, no. It's up to the individual person not to rape somebody. How about instead of rapists having to feel terrible about not reporting, somebody blames the rapist for not coming forward? I don't want to hear that they don't have conciouses, we don't blame murder victims for being murdered. What about somebody who was robbed of their garden gnome and didn't report it, then their nextdoor neighbor was robbed of their garden gnome and the person came forward afterwards. Is it their fault too?

With this, I have to bring up another point. In many sexual assault cases, the victim as screamed, and people have heard it and not done anything. Then when asked about it later, have confessed to hear them scream. As sad as it is for not reporting, should they be the victim?

There is only one person who should be blamed in a rape case: The rapist.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

Accusations are meaningless without evidence, they cannot and should not be presumed to be true. ...if they have no evidence then we have no reason to believe.

There shouldn't be charges, but why can't we just believe the victim and help get her help? Is jailing the person the only thing to come of an accusation? We shouldn't automatically assume just because she has no evidence he/she has no evidence that they are lying, rather, we should do our best to help the person.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

All rapists who are proven to be so are convicted.

Not so much. There are many laws that protect rapists. I've heard of cases (I'll try to find sources) of people using things such as "I used a condom, she had time to pull away" or "There's no way he could have been able to take off her jeans, jeans are too hard to take off, she must have had to taken them off herself" and gotten away with it. Coercion and cases where consent is not given are still instances of trauma, instances of rape, but are not given the same attention because it wasn't a guy coming out of the bushes, are are often not convicted.

Originally Posted by Cosmo

I did not automatically believe she was lying and I did not give the incident lower priority.

Woman accuses rich man of raping -> Only goes to court for money -> Just wants money -> Lying. Automatic accusation, did not think through other options.

[forfrosne]

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

I'm not saying it's bad because it's wikipedia, I'm saying they are bad because they do not have an exact country in which we are talking about. From our own standpoint, we are talking about first world countries with higher court systems. Looking at these statistics, they are taken from countries around the world, some of them with much higher rates of accusation against rape victims. Many countries see being raped as a crime. I would just like to see SPECIFIC statistics for countries that we are more talking about, such as the UK, the US, Australia, ext.

I'll do my best to research that tomorrow. I'll report my findings whether they support my case or yours.

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

Actually, no. It's up to the individual person not to rape somebody. How about instead of victims having to feel terrible about not reporting, somebody blames the rapist for not coming forward? I don't want to hear that they don't have conciouses, we don't blame murder victims for being murdered. What about somebody who was robbed of their garden gnome and didn't report it, then their nextdoor neighbor was robbed of their garden gnome and the person came forward afterwards. Is it their fault too?

No, we don't blame them for being murdered. We also don't blame victims of rape for being raped. The whole "she was dressed provocatively" argument and it's kin are rubbish.
Your example is also flawed. In your example the first person doesn't have any clue what happened to the garden gnome, however in the case in this thread she did know who raped her.

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

There is only one person who should be blamed in a rape case: The rapist.

I agree. It's not the victim's fault. I am simply considering it like this:

If I have the ability to stop a criminal from shooting an innocent man, but choose not to, am I partially responsible (difference between "responsible" and "to blame") for the man not surviving?

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

[/font][/color][/size]There shouldn't be charges, but why can't we just believe the victim and help get her help? Is jailing the person the only thing to come of an accusation? We shouldn't automatically assume just because she has no evidence he/she has no evidence that they are lying, rather, we should do our best to help the person.

[/font][/color][/size]
I'm not saying she can't get help, I'm saying that her opinion is invalid as a statistic in use with the number of unreported rapes.

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

Not so much. There are many laws that protect rapists. I've heard of cases (I'll try to find sources) of people using things such as "I used a condom, she had time to pull away" or "There's no way he could have been able to take off her jeans, jeans are too hard to take off, she must have had to taken them off herself" and gotten away with it. Coercion and cases where consent is not given are still instances of trauma, instances of rape, but are not given the same attention because it wasn't a guy coming out of the bushes, are are often not convicted.

Sorry I think you might have misinterpreted my sentence.
What I mean is that if a rapist is proven to be a rapist then he will be convicted, however the reason the conviction rates are low for accused rapists is because very few are actually proved to be rapists.

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

[/font][/color][/size]Woman accuses rich man of raping -> Only goes to court for money -> Just wants money -> Lying. Automatic accusation, did not think through other options.[/size][/color][/font]

When a woman accuses a rich man of raping her, then provides little to no evidence and then settles out of court for money, then that's no longer an assumption it then becomes a reasoned opinion based on evidence even though I may be wrong. It's not really up to me to decide whether she was lying or not, the jury know far more than we do.

[TigerTank77]

Can I just ask a question here?

Why is that everytime these discussions come up, one side of the argument always screams VICTIM SHAMING, RAPE CULTURE, VICTIM SHAMING, RAPE CULTURE, when that's not even close to what's being discussed here?

I feel that there's an actual movement afoot here to get rid of people's abilities to question the validity of rape accusations, to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if they'd go for the complete removal of due process when an accusation is made.

No two cases are exactly alike. And statistically, the average person is Chinese, so it'd not worth using that as an argument, especially when a concrete number can't exactly be pinpointed.

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

[/font][/color][/size]Woman accuses rich man of raping -> Only goes to court for money -> Just wants money -> Lying. Automatic accusation, did not think through other options.[/size][/color][/font]

More like

Woman accuses rich man of raping -> has no evidence to support claim -> Prosecutor refuses to bring criminal case about, says both parties are equally responsible -> settle actual legal matters months ago civil case still in court, push for settlement -> waits for Roth to make settlement, drops case afterwards -> obviously bullshitting about being "raped"

Here's what I think. Rothlisberger offered her cash to sleep with him. She did, and either he refused to pay her afterwards, or she got greedy and wanted more. Either way =/= not rape, and criminal charges should be brought against her for falsifying a rape accusation.

Also, I'm not saying we shouldn't help a person who says they've been raped. What I'm saying is, they need evidence for it to be brought to court in any shape or form. Simply accusing another person is not, and should not be enough to warrant an arrest and conviction.

The argument of responsibility is for another thread. I will say that the victim is never to blame, but the insanity revolving around the line of thought that having women take more steps to protect themselves is making them responsible for their own rapes and supports rape culture is the dumbest fucking line of thought I've ever heard in my life, and is probably the only clearcut culture that is perpetuating rape.

Also, I think we need to redefine what is and isn't rape, because I see way too much leeway in throwing the word around.

[Coffee.]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I feel that there's an actual movement afoot here to get rid of people's abilities to question the validity of rape accusations, to the point where I wouldn't be surprised if they'd go for the complete removal of due process when an accusation is made.

Funny, because if you read what I said, you know I said the opposite. I think when an accusation of rape is made, it should be taken seriously enough to be able to give them help, and be able to at least look for evidence to get the person accused in jail. I'm not saying remove due-process, but you guys are acting like it's easy to just accuse somebody of rape and get them jailed, when that is precisely the opposite of the case. It's actually very difficult to get charged with rape.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

they need evidence for it to be brought to court in any shape or form. Simply accusing another person is not, and should not be enough to warrant an arrest and conviction.

Not arguing with you, and you also don't know if she had evidence or not? He could have really been avoiding some crap hitting the fan.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

The argument of responsibility is for another thread. I will say that the victim is never to blame, but the insanity revolving around the line of thought that having women take more steps to protect themselves is making them responsible for their own rapes and supports rape culture is the dumbest fucking line of thought I've ever heard in my life, and is probably the only clearcut culture that is perpetuating rape.

It is making them responsible. There are no steps you can take to avoid getting raped, most of the time rape happens between you and an acquaintance, somebody that you trust. Not wearing a short skirt and bringing your drink to the bathroom are stupid old fashioned tips that don't work because they only protect you against stranger rape, something that happened in less than 1% of rapes. There are no ways to protect yourself, yes, there are safer situations to put yourself in, like you should probably not get super drunk at a party, but lots of girls get super drunk at a party, it does not give somebody the right to rape them.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Also, I think we need to redefine what is and isn't rape, because I see way too much leeway in throwing the word around.

Rape is sex without consent, so not only the presence of a no, but the absence of a yes.

But really, is it really that hard to get away with rape? No, it's not. There's no male-sexism going on, policemen aren't out there trying their best to arrest a bunch of guys because women want money. So this isn't an issue for you guys. Ask consent from your partners, and you never really have to worry about this anyway?

[TheBabyEater]

I was raped. If I had the chance to take as much away from the man that hurt me as I could, you bet your ass I would have. Money, time, media, there have been times I was so pissed I'd take his life. It's the disbelief that men have of women who are genuinely raped that has kept me from telling a single soul other than anonymous strangers on the internet.

On the other hand, I have met women who HAVE outright lied about being raped and sexually assaulted. These woman make me sick beyond belief, and I just as well would take everything I could from them.


Do we have the right to make the call of whether or not this woman was raped? No. 1: We are not the judge, we are not the Jury. 2: We do not have near enough information to make said judgement. All the articles state is that the trial is over, and how much the woman went for. One article pretty much simply states they know jack shit. Not near enough information for any of your debates to make a bit of sense.

You're all wrong, and wasting your time, get over it.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TheBabyEater

Do we have the right to make the call of whether or not this woman was raped? No. 1: We are not the judge, we are not the Jury. 2: We do not have near enough information to make said judgement. All the articles state is that the trial is over, and how much the woman went for. One article pretty much simply states they know jack shit. Not near enough information for any of your debates to make a bit of sense.

Very fair point. All the same, I think this is one of those areas where the wider debate about conviciton rates, case attrition etc. is always going to flare up, even if it doesn't directly relate to the case in question. That's certainly been my experience when studying this area of criminal law.

[NonIndigenous]

If this rape case was faked by the woman for money... she deserves one of the biggest slaps ever awarded.

I imagine everyone is pissed off with her. It's an insult to men, to other rape victims, etc.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by Coffee❤

It is making them responsible. There are no steps you can take to avoid getting raped, most of the time rape happens between you and an acquaintance, somebody that you trust. Not wearing a short skirt and bringing your drink to the bathroom are stupid old fashioned tips that don't work because they only protect you against stranger rape, something that happened in less than 1% of rapes. There are no ways to protect yourself, yes, there are safer situations to put yourself in, like you should probably not get super drunk at a party, but lots of girls get super drunk at a party, it does not give somebody the right to rape them.

No no no no no no no no. This is bad. BAD. Turning women into helpless targets is baaaaaaaaaaad. And I'm not talking about clothing or drinking, I'm talking about like, oh I don't know, carrying a stun gun on your person to defend yourself.

I mean, the best advice we can give women is to vomit, because it might deter their attacker. Really? Vomit? How about "shoot your attacker in the face."

No one has the right to rape anyone. But dismissing any advice someone gives about defending yourself as "blaming the victim" is ignorant, any way you put it. We do not live in a perfect world, and we need to stop pretending we do.

Also, I say we need it redefined, because I have seen instances where a girl has slept with a man, after giving consent, only to revoke that consent after the act has happened, because she decided it was a mistake, and it's not right. Rare? Yes, but it happens. I've seen it twice, and the second time her friends, who all suggested she sleep with the guy in the first place, were all ready to testify on her behalf that she was raped.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

No no no no no no no no. This is bad. BAD. Turning women into helpless targets is baaaaaaaaaaad. And I'm not talking about clothing or drinking, I'm talking about like, oh I don't know, carrying a stun gun on your person to defend yourself.

I mean, the best advice we can give women is to vomit, because it might deter their attacker. Really? Vomit? How about "shoot your attacker in the face."

And if the rapist is carrying a gun themself? What then? Or if they overpower the victim and take possession of the stun gun? Introducing weapons into the equation isn't a magic pill, and if anything only raises the odds of the victim being killed. Truth be told, the best defence against rape attempts is probably a swift kick to the genitalia - I don't know many blokes who can carry on an attack if that happens...

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

No one has the right to rape anyone. But dismissing any advice someone gives about defending yourself as "blaming the victim" is ignorant, any way you put it. We do not live in a perfect world, and we need to stop pretending we do.

Probably the one bit I agree with.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Also, I say we need it redefined, because I have seen instances where a girl has slept with a man, after giving consent, only to revoke that consent after the act has happened, because she decided it was a mistake, and it's not right. Rare? Yes, but it happens. I've seen it twice, and the second time her friends, who all suggested she sleep with the guy in the first place, were all ready to testify on her behalf that she was raped.

...and most of them would probably crumble under cross-examination if they're that fickle. Presumably it didn't even get to court given that you said they were ready to testify as opposed to them actually testifying, but changing the definition of rape simply because a minority of people are trying to take advantage of it is not the answer to the problem. That's a prime case of throwing the baby out with the bathwater.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by dr2005

And if the rapist is carrying a gun themself? What then? Or if they overpower the victim and take possession of the stun gun? Introducing weapons into the equation isn't a magic pill, and if anything only raises the odds of the victim being killed. Truth be told, the best defence against rape attempts is probably a swift kick to the genitalia - I don't know many blokes who can carry on an attack if that happens...

Or it might just piss them off and make them seriously injure kill their victim.

"Oh the attacker might be armed" is not a valid reason for saying that you shouldn't have something to defend yourself. Otherwise, you're just an even easier target.

In the real world, the best defense against a rapist is something that incapacitates them as far as possible from the victim. Not getting up close and putting your life on your ability to kick accuratley and hard under duress.

[shimmeringfaerie]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Or it might just piss them off and make them seriously injure kill their victim.

"Oh the attacker might be armed" is not a valid reason for saying that you shouldn't have something to defend yourself. Otherwise, you're just an even easier target.

In the real world, the best defense against a rapist is something that incapacitates them as far as possible from the victim. Not getting up close and putting your life on your ability to kick accuratley and hard under duress.

But your argument that women should carry weapons to defend themselves against rapists is basically operating on the assumption that most rapes are committed by strangers who leap out from the darkness when women are walking home or something.

Rapes almost always are committed by acquaintances/friends/partners. It's not reasonable to expect women to always carry weapons when they go on a date with their long-term partner or when they visit a male friend.

And I would actually argue that a better defence against rapists would involve better education about sexual assault and placing a greater focus on preventing people from becoming rapists in the first place, rather than focusing on potential victims.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

Rapes almost always are committed by acquaintances/friends/partners. It's not reasonable to expect women to always carry weapons when they go on a date with their long-term partner or when they visit a male friend.

And? Again, the knowledge that said female is armed with either a stun gun or an actual gun, generally is enough to deter most people. If the idea got around that most women were armed in such a fashion, people would be less likely to fuck with them. This is a fact.

Originally Posted by ShimmeringFaerie

And I would actually argue that a better defense against rapists would involve better education about sexual assault and placing a greater focus on preventing people from becoming rapists in the first place, rather than focusing on potential victims.

I don't see how you can predict someone becoming a rapist, especially if some are close friends and family, because no one would ever suspect them. Unless there is already a history of sexual abuse, there's not a whole lot of signs.

Honestly, the idea of attempting to create a general profile for most rapists is going to create a lot of issues. Ever hear of the Schrodinger's Rapist theory? Imagine that, amplified.

[thebigmole]

I'm sorry but I find this idea that a woman can't do anything to prevent themselves from getting raped incredibly disturbing. Most of my girl friends in college carried pepper spray on their keys. That seems pretty effective to me, since you are almost always likely to have your keys on you. My dad was even considering getting me self defense classes before leaving for college. If you have the right stuff, and the smarts not to get wasted around people you don't completely trust, or even better just not to get wasted to the point where you can't defend yourself, you can probably avoid getting assaulted. There are ways to protect yourself, and I think that it's dangerous to say there isn't.

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Or it might just piss them off and make them seriously injure kill their victim.

Having being on the receiving end of a proper strike to the groin area during a Jiu-Jitsu grading, I can assure you that you're in no position to do much of anything in that situation. In any event, the same could just as easily be applied in your example of pulling a gun on them, stun gun or otherwise.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

"Oh the attacker might be armed" is not a valid reason for saying that you shouldn't have something to defend yourself. Otherwise, you're just an even easier target.

No, but that wasn't what I said and you haven't actually answered my question as to what someone is supposed to do in that situation. By my reckoning, you simply end up with a standoff and it's more likely the attacker will be

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

In the real world, the best defense against a rapist is something that incapacitates them as far as possible from the victim. Not getting up close and putting your life on your ability to kick accuratley and hard under duress.

In the real world, opportunities to pick someone off from a distance rarely happen, if at all, and certainly not in instances such as rape and sexual assault. As has already been pointed out, and as you apparently continue to ignore, the vast majority of rapes are carried out by persons known to the victim, usually partners or ex-partners. In those cases, the odds of such an opportunity arising are even more remote. That's why self-defence classes deal with what to do if someone is up close, rather than just saying "get a gun and shoot them"...

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

And? Again, the knowledge that said female is armed with either a stun gun or an actual gun, generally is enough to deter most people. If the idea got around that most women were armed in such a fashion, people would be less likely to fuck with them. This is a fact.

One, it's your opinion and not a fact - fact implies empirical evidence to support it. Two, the alternative is that it leads to escalation and victims being shot themselves before being attacked. Not what I would call an improvement, if I'm honest.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I don't see how you can predict someone becoming a rapist, especially if some are close friends and family, because no one would ever suspect them. Unless there is already a history of sexual abuse, there's not a whole lot of signs.

If it's applied in a blanket fashion, alongside general sex education, you don't need to be able to pick out the potential rapists. The idea is you nip it in the bud before it becomes a problem.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Honestly, the idea of attempting to create a general profile for most rapists is going to create a lot of issues. Ever hear of the Schrodinger's Rapist theory? Imagine that, amplified.

See above.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by dr2005

Having being on the receiving end of a proper strike to the groin area during a Jiu-Jitsu grading, I can assure you that you're in no position to do much of anything in that situation. In any event, the same could just as easily be applied in your example of pulling a gun on them, stun gun or otherwise.

I can assure you, that the confines of a friendly sparring competition and being attacked on the street are two COMPLETELY different things.

Originally Posted by dr2005

No, but that wasn't what I said and you haven't actually answered my question as to what someone is supposed to do in that situation. By my reckoning, you simply end up with a standoff and it's more likely the attacker will be

Because in most situations, it has been empirically shown that when a stun gun or hand gun is produced by the defendant, the attacker will most likely leave the area. Most instances of a civilian drawing their self defense weapon end without a shot being fired.

If the attacker is also armed, then yes it might be a standoff. But I'd rather have a standoff then be at a disadvantage.

Also, there's no reason to think if the attacker was armed, that he'd have any more experience or training than the armed victim.

Originally Posted by dr2005

In the real world, opportunities to pick someone off from a distance rarely happen, if at all, and certainly not in instances such as rape and sexual assault. As has already been pointed out, and as you apparently continue to ignore, the vast majority of rapes are carried out by persons known to the victim, usually partners or ex-partners. In those cases, the odds of such an opportunity arising are even more remote. That's why self-defence classes deal with what to do if someone is up close, rather than just saying "get a gun and shoot them"...

You still have a better chance at deterring the situation than if you were unarmed.

Originally Posted by dr2005

One, it's your opinion and not a fact - fact implies empirical evidence to support it. Two, the alternative is that it leads to escalation and victims being shot themselves before being attacked. Not what I would call an improvement, if I'm honest.

I would rather get shot attempting to defend myself than get raped, if I'm honest. Unless of course you'd like to sit there and say that being raped is a better alternative.

Originally Posted by dr2005

If it's applied in a blanket fashion, alongside general sex education, you don't need to be able to pick out the potential rapists. The idea is you nip it in the bud before it becomes a problem.

Give me some clearcut, unmistakable examples of a "potential rapist" then.

[rizz]

look im not saying he did but also not that he didnt do it but i was raped and i didn't get my day in court so now i'm making it a civil and taking him to court to get money for what he did because to me that is my justice that in my head is someone...a judge...saying to me "yes i believe you"

you really should not judge if you have not been there or don't know whats going on behind the scenes and being that you dont know them...i doubt you do

[dr2005]

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I can assure you, that the confines of a friendly sparring competition and being attacked on the street are two COMPLETELY different things.

If you seriously think a Jiu-Jitsu grading is a "friendly sparring competition", I'd suggest you actually go to one. I can assure you friendly does not come into the equation. In my case, the person who struck me in that region did so with enough force to lift my feet off the ground, and I'm hardly a lightweight. If done properly, it can incapacitate an attacker long enough to get away, and that ultimately is more effective than pulling a gun on them and hoping they don't shoot first.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Because in most situations, it has been empirically shown that when a stun gun or hand gun is produced by the defendant, the attacker will most likely leave the area. Most instances of a civilian drawing their self defense weapon end without a shot being fired.

Source?

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

If the attacker is also armed, then yes it might be a standoff. But I'd rather have a standoff then be at a disadvantage.

Also, there's no reason to think if the attacker was armed, that he'd have any more experience or training than the armed victim.

Perhaps not, but it's also erroneous to presume the attacker will be taken down before they fire themselves, which seems to be the implication in all your arguments. What is equally conceivable is that the victim is shot, raped regardless and left with the aftermath of rape and the injuries resultant from the gunshot wound, which could potentially be fatal. That is a constant danger when talking about escalation such as you describe, and again why bringing weapons into the equation is not a magic pill as you allude to.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

You still have a better chance at deterring the situation than if you were unarmed.

Based on what, exactly?

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

I would rather get shot attempting to defend myself than get raped, if I'm honest. Unless of course you'd like to sit there and say that being raped is a better alternative.

I think self-defence techniques aimed at preventing either are a better bet, to be honest. They tend to be more effective and also come without the same risk of being killed.

Originally Posted by TigerTank77

Give me some clearcut, unmistakable examples of a "potential rapist" then.

Sorry, did you actually bother to read what I wrote? If you apply education in a blanket fashion and enforce positive attitudes from the outset, as I alluded to in my post, the "potential rapist" angle becomes completely redundant. If you target the general population with such a message, and in particular make people more aware about consent and basic respect, you reduce the likelihood of harmful attitudes developing. I don't exactly see what the problem is with that statement.

[TigerTank77]

Originally Posted by dr2005

If you seriously think a Jiu-Jitsu grading is a "friendly sparring competition", I'd suggest you actually go to one. I can assure you friendly does not come into the equation. In my case, the person who struck me in that region did so with enough force to lift my feet off the ground, and I'm hardly a lightweight. If done properly, it can incapacitate an attacker long enough to get away, and that ultimately is more effective than pulling a gun on them and hoping they don't shoot first.

There's still a difference. They aren't trying to kill or rape you. There are people there who can stop the thing if it gets really bad. It's still "safe."

Originally Posted by dr2005

Source?

http://www.pulpless.com/gunclock/kleck2.html

(About a 3rd of the way down the page)

About 92% of all "incidents" result in no shots fired.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Perhaps not, but it's also erroneous to presume the attacker will be taken down before they fire themselves, which seems to be the implication in all your arguments. What is equally conceivable is that the victim is shot, raped regardless and left with the aftermath of rape and the injuries resultant from the gunshot wound, which could potentially be fatal. That is a constant danger when talking about escalation such as you describe, and again why bringing weapons into the equation is not a magic pill as you allude to.

I'm not saying it's going to be a magic pill, I'm saying it's going to give the person a better chance than if they were simply unarmed. You however, are automatically assuming the criminal is always going to shoot first and come out on top.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Based on what, exactly?

Based on the fact that if you're unarmed, you're going to become a victim regardless. If you are armed, you have a chance, however slight it may be.

Some chance is better than no chance.

Originally Posted by dr2005

I think self-defence techniques aimed at preventing either are a better bet, to be honest. They tend to be more effective and also come without the same risk of being killed.

Self-defense techniques aren't preventative in that aspect, though.

Originally Posted by dr2005

Sorry, did you actually bother to read what I wrote? If you apply education in a blanket fashion and enforce positive attitudes from the outset, as I alluded to in my post, the "potential rapist" angle becomes completely redundant. If you target the general population with such a message, and in particular make people more aware about consent and basic respect, you reduce the likelihood of harmful attitudes developing. I don't exactly see what the problem is with that statement.

The problem with that statement is that you're depending on the rapist, who already knows that rape is wrong, to suddenly come to his senses because you "educated" him that what he's doing is wrong.

Also, how the hell are you going to "enforce" positive attitudes?