Rape

[Blind groper]

I do not want anyone to read into this post a lack of sympathy for women who have been raped. That is a massively traumatic experience, and the arseholes who do it deserve any penalty a judge throws at them. However, the thesis I am putting forward is that it is really, really difficult to prove, and lots of guys get convicted who were innocent. That is every bit as bad as a woman who is raped not obtaining justice. Perhaps worse.

This was stimulated by an article in the American version of Skeptic magazine, vol.21, number 1, 2016, page 6. Article written by Dr. Carol Tavris, a social psychologist. She points out cases where rape is alleged and obviously did not happen, and other cases where rape is alleged, 'proved' in court, and where it very likely did not happen either.

She points out the ridiculous nature of some so-called academic studies, which allege that up to 25% of all women are raped at some stage in their lives. In fact, when those 'studies' are analysed, it turns out that the 'rape' was simply something like unwanted fondling. It appears much more likely, from her investigations, that the correct number is between 1% and 3% of western women.

One of the problems relating to court verdicts is that sexual consent is a slippery concept. Most situations when a man and a woman have sex, nothing is said about consent. It is simply that, as things progress, the woman fails to say no, and fails to oppose the sexual act. If that woman later decides she did not actually want the sex, it may lead to an accusation of rape. It is worse if the man and woman were sharing alcohol or drugs, since the woman is then less likely to say no or resist.

There are some cases where rape occurs, where force is absolutely unambiguous. But most cases of rape accusation, the force is more ambiguous. Probably, in many cases, it is more like emotional pressure than actual force. Is it rape if a woman does not want sex, but fails to say no or physically resist?

Add to these uncertainties a couple more factors, and rape accusations are a real mess.
1. Lots of women engage in a sexual one night stand, but regret it later.
2. Memory is malleable, and changes over time according to what people want it to be, or alter it into being.

So a woman who has sex may decide later that she did not want it, regrets it, and then by dwelling upon that sexual injury mentally over a period of time, alters her memory into a case of rape.

If an accusation of rape involves ambiguity, or simply "he says but she says", then how do you arrive at a correct decision of guilty or not guilty?

[tattuchu]

I suppose everyone will have to start recording everything they do with little forehead cams. Or maybe an implant in one or both eyes that allows recording and playback.

[pErvinalia]

There is no such thing as rape. All women want it.

(post made to piss Exi5 off)

[mistermack]

One of the problems relating to court verdicts is that sexual consent is a slippery concept.

He he, hee hee hee, heee heee heee heee....

You slipped that one in right under everyones' noses....He he, hee hee hee, heee heee heee heee....

[pErvinalia]

Rapist.

[Svartalf]

Peezeeist.

[Tero]

Not forgetting Seedish rape. All sex with a woman and man (not 2 of the same sex) is pretty much rape. It's just that women choose not to report it. The condom broke? Rape!

[Blind groper]

Let me extend the argument.

I think there is a good chance that Bill Cosby and Rolf Harris are both innocent of rape. Not of immorality, but that is not illegal.

Charlie Sheen said that he had sex with 5,000 women. Magic Johnson said he had sex with 10,000. It appears that male celebrities are so attractive to young doting women fans that they can have a different bed partner every night. Wish I was a celebrity!

Anyway, if we assume that Rolf Harris and Bill Cosby were no different to other male celebrities, they also probably, when they were younger, had sex with literally thousands of women.

How many of those women later decided they actually did not want that sex and regretted it? Quite a few, I am betting. Hundreds at least, if not thousands.

Human memory is malleable, and influenced by both outside forces, and internal forces. Merely thinking too much about an old memory can change it. (Research done by Prof. Elizabeth Loftus).

So here we have hundreds, if not thousands of women who had sex with some celebrity, and now regret it, and are pondering on their regrets. Memory changes.

It starts out as :
I did not want that sex.

Then it becomes :
He pressured me into having sex.

Then it becomes :
He forced me into that sex.

I wuz raped!!

Of course, women also influence each other. If one woman comes out and claims to have been raped by a celebrity, it will cause other women to reassess their memories of having sex with that celebrity, and dozens more women then believe (wrongly) they had been raped.

The accusers of Bill Cosby and Rolf Harris are probably totally sincere in their belief that they were raped. But there is every chance that they were wrong. When thousands of women had sex with the celebrity, the fact that many later claimed rape does not prove anything. Many claims does not mean they are based on anything other than delusion.

[JimC]

BG, I understand what you are getting at with the celebrity/groupie thing, which I'm sure happened with real consent many a time, but from everything I have read, I think you're wrong about Cosby (who administered drugs to his victims) and to Harris, who groomed very young girls. You are also underestimating how difficult it was in times past for a young girl to be believed when complaining about famous older men.

[mistermack]

I don't think Cosby's been convicted of anything as yet.

"Administered drugs" is emotive. Those people pop pills like sweeties, and share them around.

Administer drugs is what they do in hospitals. It's different.

I've got friends who used to never go out, without a bellyful of something or other. Probably still doing the same. It's not for me, but it's nothing unusual to them. It's a case of "do you want one of these?" rather than "administering drugs". I believe they were legal prescription drugs, in Cosby's case, and that's pretty standard in Hollywood.

[Blind groper]

The most widely used seduction drug is alcohol. Most guys have tried that trick, often with the enthusiastic assistance from the gal he is seducing. It makes sense that celebrities should also use other drugs, since they are so widely used by rich media stars. If a male celebrity and the young woman he is seducing share alcohol or drugs, that is not the same as using rape drugs. However, where does seduction end and rape begin?

[Brian Peacock]

On the matter of consent and intoxication, in the UK the 2003 Sexual Offences Act defines consent as "If [a party] agrees by choice, and has the freedom and capacity to make that choice."

The prosecution guidance on this contains the following:

Prosecutors should consider [consent] in two stages. They are:

• Whether a complainant had the capacity (i.e. the age and understanding) to make a choice about whether or not to take part in the sexual activity at the time in question.
• Whether he or she was in a position to make that choice freely, and was not constrained in any way. Assuming that the complainant had both the freedom and capacity to consent, the crucial question is whether the complainant agrees to the activity by choice.

The question of capacity to consent is particularly relevant when a complainant is intoxicated by alcohol or affected by drugs.

In R v Bree [2007] EWCA 256, the Court of Appeal explored the issue of capacity and consent, stating that, if, through drink, or for any other reason, a complainant had temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have sexual intercourse, she was not consenting, and subject to the defendant's state of mind, if intercourse took place, that would be rape. However, where a complainant had voluntarily consumed substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remained capable of choosing whether to have intercourse, and agreed to do so, that would not be rape. Further, they identified that capacity to consent may evaporate well before a complainant becomes unconscious. Whether this is so or not, however, depends on the facts of the case.

In cases similar to Bree, prosecutors should carefully consider whether the complainant has the capacity to consent, and ensure that the instructed advocate presents the Crown's case on this basis and, if necessary, reminds the trial judge of the need to assist the jury with the meaning of capacity.

Prosecutors and investigators should consider whether supporting evidence is available to demonstrate that the complainant was so intoxicated that he/she had lost their capacity to consent. For example, evidence from friends, taxi drivers and forensic physicians describing the complainant's intoxicated state may support the prosecution case. In addition, it may be possible to obtain expert evidence in respect of the effects of alcohol/drugs and the effects if they are taken together. Consideration should be given to obtaining an expert's back calculation or the opinion of an expert in human pharmacology in relation to the complainant's level of alcohol/ drugs at the time of the incident.

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/p_to_r/rape ... s/consent/

[JimC]

These were drugs that rendered the victim unconscious, not "in the mood". I would count both his actions and Harrises as rape, based on what has been given as evidence in court. This does not mean that your hypothetical non-rape scenarios don't exist, simply that I don't think they apply to those two...

[pErvinalia]

Stupid thread.

[JimC]

I think BG's ideas are worth considering, in that they would occur sometime, but I think not nearly as often as he is implying...