View Full Version : Am I the ONLY One Who Thinks This Attitude is FUCKED Up?
madmaxine
08-11-2006, 03:16 PM
I agree histronics by "drama queens" harms the legit claims of rape.
Police have terms for rape- a "good" rape is easy to prove. A "bad" rape is......where the woman's background makes her claim..."questionable"...
BUT some people will never understand how life really works. These "people" are sheltered females and obtuse males. In some parts of the world, women have no rights so "rape" does not exist. How can a crime occur if a society does not recognize an offense to be wrong and hurtful? In past centuries, sex being forced on a woman was an offense against the male guardian of a female (ruining her value as a marriageable female, tainting her, introducing unwanted genes [in cases of rape as a war crime].) That was the only reason a rapist was punished, not for the harm done to a woman but the inconvenience done to her family.
I don't want to go on, but in the modern world, a woman has to be hypervigilant. It's not "fun" to be that way. But if Siber's statements are correct, God will be judging most rapists before courts do.
(I sure hope God is Woman......)
BrainyDancerGirl
08-11-2006, 05:34 PM
In the OP, the friend didn't think the porn star/escort was right to say she was raped by a customer she went out with to have sex for money.
Not quite AZ. Sorry.
It's not that she didn't think she was "right" to say that she was raped.
(FYI - remember that hardly any facts of this care are known...for all anyone knows, she could have refused the money and said this was not something she wanted to do and tried to back out but he wouldn't let her...we can conjecture until the cows come home, but NOBODY knows what transpired between those two except the two of them).
No. The reason why her attitude is fucked up is because she automatically felt that this woman SHOULD NOT BE BELIEVED when it came to her claim of rape BECAUSE she was a sex worker.
AZ, I am really trying hard not to become infuriated by your comments, but at times, you make that quite difficult. You make it seem like if a woman is in the sex industry, if she gets raped or assaulted otherwise, then it's okay for people to think "Well, what'd you expect? You ARE in the sex business..." For someone who has NOT been raped, that thought may seem logical. And yes it is true that women in the sex industry may be at a greater risk of sexual and physical harm.
But to insinuate the idea that it's okay for someone to think "Well, what'd you expect?"...do you even KNOW what that DOES to a woman who's been raped? You make it seem like she should place the blame on HERSELF. That SHE is at fault for what was done to her.
A woman who walks alone to her car at night in sweats in a somewhat dark, and not-so-safe neighborhood is probably at a high risk of experiencing some kind of crime. Yet, if she were raped, would you sit her down and say, "Oh, honey, well you DID walk to your car by yourself...so what'd you expect?"
Rape is the ONLY crime where people tend to focus on the actions of the alleged victim and NOT the alleged criminal. Telling a woman "What'd you expect?" because she works in the sex industry relfects just that kind of attitude.
pipermarau
08-13-2006, 09:39 AM
thats sad that she ever had thoughts like that. perhaps she just has not been able to form her own opinions before you explained things to her. too much tv can do that to a person, man OR woman. i was watching the first season of cathouse on HBO about the bunny ranch in nevada, i was surprised at what i saw. the OWNER on live tv stated that not a single one of his ladies HAS to sleep with anyone she doesn't want to. he said she is a woman and if she says she doesn't want to have sex with a person she is in no way required to and no one can argue that. hearing an owner of a brothel say that made me feel more confident that decent men do exist. i just hope other people catch on to that.
azcustomer
08-13-2006, 11:15 AM
Not quite AZ. Sorry.
It's not that she didn't think she was "right" to say that she was raped.
...
No. The reason why her attitude is fucked up is because she automatically felt that this woman SHOULD NOT BE BELIEVED when it came to her claim of rape BECAUSE she was a sex worker.
You made the original post, so if that's what you meant, then that's what you meant. But that's not what you said in the OP.
AZ, I am really trying hard not to become infuriated by your comments, but at times, you make that quite difficult. You make it seem like if a woman is in the sex industry, if she gets raped or assaulted otherwise, then it's okay for people to think "Well, what'd you expect? You ARE in the sex business..." For someone who has NOT been raped, that thought may seem logical. And yes it is true that women in the sex industry may be at a greater risk of sexual and physical harm.
Um, basically that's what I said. Sorry I chose words to upset you.
But to insinuate the idea that it's okay for someone to think "Well, what'd you expect?"...do you even KNOW what that DOES to a woman who's been raped? You make it seem like she should place the blame on HERSELF. That SHE is at fault for what was done to her.
Um, the gal went to have sex for money with a guy and later claims she was raped. We don't know the circumstances, but yes, she should have expected that there would be a chance she was raped. Should she feel comfortable complaining abou it? Yes. Is it right for people who chose not to be sexworkers and would never, never put themselves in that position to say: "well, I'm not at all suprised..." Yep. Should she blame herself? Not if she wants to stay in the business.
A woman who walks alone to her car at night in sweats in a somewhat dark, and not-so-safe neighborhood is probably at a high risk of experiencing some kind of crime. Yet, if she were raped, would you sit her down and say, "Oh, honey, well you DID walk to your car by yourself...so what'd you expect?"
There is no comparison here. How about if she walks home drunk at night in a shiny mini, six inch pumps down the middle of the street singing drunkenly loudly in a bad neighborhood. Would I still feel bad for her and supportive? Sure. But I would also tell her she should have been more careful. And in that case, the gal would still have been way more careful than the escort stripper in your OP.
Rape is the ONLY crime where people tend to focus on the actions of the alleged victim and NOT the alleged criminal. Telling a woman "What'd you expect?" because she works in the sex industry relfects just that kind of attitude.
People aren't ignoring the actions of rapists, nor are they excusing it. However ignoring the fact that rape happens and women should consider the risks of their own behavior is ridiculous.
BrainyDancerGirl
08-13-2006, 03:38 PM
I never said women shouldn't consider the risks of their own behavior. NEVER.
You should. And yes, women in the sex industry are at a greater risk of sexual violence. It is not fair that we have to be hyper-vigilant as one poster pointed out. We do. And we do have to understand that by involving ourselves in a sexually charged industry, we must understand the high likelihood that people may act in ways they wouldn't ordinarily in other circumstances.
But that does NOT excuse people for automatically assuming that they shouldn't be believed because they are sex workers. And that was the point of the entire post.
So tell me AZcustomer...you think just because a woman accepts sex for money that she can't be raped?
BrainyDancerGirl
08-13-2006, 03:53 PM
Okay, okay...you don't have to answer that question...I know you'll answer "No" you don't believe that.
Let's just agree to disagree and squash this. I think I'm right (of course I have more support in this forum than you do for my proposition). And you think that you're right.
But, speaking hypothetically. Let's say it IS okay for people to think that way. To think "Well, what did you expect? You were a sex worker."
How do you think this factors in assessing the guilt of the alleged perpertrator? If all that matters is that what the guy did was wrong (i.e. forcing himself on her), then why do we even need to focus on what she was doing at the time at all?
Is it because people think she had "second thoughts" about being a prostitute and wants to clear her name? Is it because people think she's pissed at him for some reason? What kind of justification do people have for thinking this way, given all the hardship and public stigmatism that a woman who is in the sex industry has to go through in order to report a rape?
Jenny
08-13-2006, 07:28 PM
People aren't ignoring the actions of rapists, nor are they excusing it. However ignoring the fact that rape happens and women should consider the risks of their own behavior is ridiculous.
I'm a sex worker. And I walk alone at night. And I think that it would be pretty ridiculous for anyone to say that rape is questionable, bad (to use Max's term) or less egregious against me because they have determined that I was engaged in risky behaviour - which is not necessarily true. Talk about histrionics. Behaviour that is truly risky? Being at home, in bed with your husband. Not on a street at night, let alone a strip club. Statistically, that is where one is most likely to get raped. Should all of those women be evaluating their own risks? I think it is interesting that we are using words like "hysteria" and "histrionics" against WOMEN who think that all rape is an equal crime, and not against men who think that certain kinds of rape should be privileged because of reactionary, false and miscontrued ideas on rape and male and female sexuality. The "problem" with being a hooker is social perception, not inherent risk. Essentially, you are arguing that because hookers are perceived as valueless or having a valueless sexuality (being unchaste) that they ought to understand themselves as being valueless, and not expect to be treated as full human beings. Is that what "being careful" is? Accepting one's status as subhuman? If so, perhaps we should all be dedicating a little less time encouraging women to acccept such status and more time taking the OP's tack of discouraging such thinking. Or so it seems to me. But I'm just a woman. And a sex worker. So being subhuman and all, y'all might want to take it with a grain of salt.
Siber
08-14-2006, 05:54 AM
GREAT point Jenny. Wow.
Now that I think of it, I saw this all the time, too, I just didn't notice. Jurors thought:
homeless people couldn't be robbed or assaulted (they can)
street drug addicts couldn't be robbed, assaulted or scammed (they can)
The world was a better place when a drug addict or gang member was murdered. (yikes. Won't even comment).
Damn, Jenny, I hope you see this. You think most people (who, then become jurors) dehumanize (at least to some degree) sex workers or all women?
I think it's all women, personally.
Siber
Pan Dah
08-14-2006, 05:29 PM
Should all of those women be evaluating their own risks?
I'm wondering if this comment might not be an indicator of one of the major problems. As I understand the statistics, there really isn't a "typical" rape victim. Pretty much any suburban housewife is as likely to be attacked as the hottest porn star. But realizing this may be just too scary for some women. It's much easier on them to believe "bad" girls are much more likely targets. Like "Oh, sure, she says she was attacked, but she's a stripper/prostitute/druggie/slut/drunk/whatever. And just look at how she acts and the kind of people she probably hangs out with. Even if she didn't 'have it coming', it was so predictable. I'm glad I don't need to worry about things like that in my suburban white bread life."
Paisley
08-16-2006, 02:19 PM
Wow.
MadMaxine, Brainygirl, Lilith, Jenny, Pan Dah and Siber. Excellent posts.
I think it's interesting how as soon as a woman is raped how "What she did" "What she wore" "What she drank" blah blah blah is all called into question. (I even know of children who have had this asked of them after being raped.) I have known of people who went up to their parents and the police and were rejected. As if there is ever a good reason or justification for another human being to enter into another human being without consent. If that doesn't happen, then it is assumed the accused must be lieing. But this is never done with other crimes. If someone is murdered, robbed, or has other crimes happen to them people generally don't try to justify it or claim that the person is lieing.
Like my mother was the victim of identity theft. My mother is extremely careless, she has lost her purse a million times. The way she was a victim of identity theft was that she left her purse and credit card book on top of the car and drove away. Another woman who looks similar to my mom picked it up and voila.
Yet no one has EVER said that my mom deserved messed up credit, a screwed up checking account, etc. Or that the criminal should get a lighter sentence simply because my mom was careless.
So what makes people think it's justifiable for someone to live with the pain of rape? I just don't get it.
I also find it interesting how many known convicted rapists often had prior accusations, sometimes from years past (Such as David Westerfield who killed 7 year old Danielle Van Dam) but these prior charges were dropped or the accused found not guilty. I wonder if these cases would have gone through the full extent of the law that many future rapes would be avoided and people like Danielle Van Dam would still be alive today if rape were taken more seriously.
Siber, I have heard from some prosecutors that it is worse to have women on the jury because they are generally less likely to have empathy for the victim than even men. Have you found this to be true?
Pan Dah, I think you are right and also a lot of people who have never been raped really don't understand it or wish to understand it since it is such an ugly topic so they just come to these very simple prejudices and justifications for it.
Sad... very sad.
Eques
08-16-2006, 11:48 PM
The there are two key words to understand here in regards to court. 'Reasonable doubt.' It is a reasonable doubt to doubt that she is telling the truth if she is a porn-star and escort. What this means is that what she wore, drank etc... can all cause there to be the existence of a reasonable doubt that she did intend sex at the time and is now ashamed/changed her mind after the fact. Or that is was mercenary in nature. etc...
It is not so reasonable a doubt if she was a nun.
If there is evidence other than the word of the woman in question, great. But putting some one in jail just based on the prosecuting witness’s testimony is outrageous in the first place, and even worse if there is cause to doubt that witness.
-----------
In regards to the moral implications and such. Yes it is outrageous. Yes it is hideous. Yes it is horrible. And yes the line of reasoning described in the original post is atrocious.
Eques
08-16-2006, 11:58 PM
As a further aside, even though it is not so reasonable a doubt if the woman in question were a nun, if there is no physical evidence etc.... then it is is still outrageous that you would put anyone in jail just based on the testimony of one person. I would prefer to live in a world where 1,000,000 rapists walk free because it was their word against their victims than in a world where you are assumed guilty and the testimony of a 'witness' is enough to put you in jail.
Paisley
08-17-2006, 05:42 AM
The there are two key words to understand here in regards to court. 'Reasonable doubt.' It is a reasonable doubt to doubt that she is telling the truth if she is a porn-star and escort. What this means is that what she wore, drank etc... can all cause there to be the existence of a reasonable doubt that she did intend sex at the time and is now ashamed/changed her mind after the fact. Or that is was mercenary in nature. etc...
It is not so reasonable a doubt if she was a nun.
If there is evidence other than the word of the woman in question, great. But putting some one in jail just based on the prosecuting witness’s testimony is outrageous in the first place, and even worse if there is cause to doubt that witness.
-----------
In regards to the moral implications and such. Yes it is outrageous. Yes it is hideous. Yes it is horrible. And yes the line of reasoning described in the original post is atrocious.
I agree with your first 2 sentences but then I am lost. Of course reasonable doubt should be called into question but I don't see what one's profession has to do with them intending to have sex or not. I have met 1 stripper who claimed to be a virgin, and everyone knows of consensual affairs that many nuns have with priests and others. My best friend is a 23 year old virgin even though you would never guess it. She doesn't dress like an Amish person, you can see her in a pair of capris and a tank top out drinking. She is a gorgeous girl, model quality, she just doesn't feel like she has met the "right person" yet. Go fig (yes, I have weird friends.) I really don't see how one's chosen profession should be used as a barometer on if they wanted to have someone inside of them or not.
And even if you do like to sleep with everything on this side of the planet I don't understand why there can't be one time that the person doesn't want to have sex and is raped.
I also find it amusing how people often assume that there is a financial benefit to it. Those are what civil trials are for, not criminal.
Siber
08-17-2006, 06:02 AM
Siber, I have heard from some prosecutors that it is worse to have women on the jury because they are generally less likely to have empathy for the victim than even men. Have you found this to be true?
Yes. Especially, sadly, young women (who, in a sick way might jealous of the attention) and "middle aged" women who might be more likely to consider themselves feminists. (like, if had burned your bra honey, this wouldn't have happened.) Older women, at least so the thought goes, tend to be more maternal, and so might be more empathetic.
Best jury is a jury that matches the victim racially that is stocked, and I mean stocked, with grandparents, actual, honest to goodness grandparents who will see their little girl.
Siber
Jenny
08-17-2006, 06:13 AM
The there are two key words to understand here in regards to court. 'Reasonable doubt.' It is a reasonable doubt to doubt that she is telling the truth if she is a porn-star and escort. What this means is that what she wore, drank etc... can all cause there to be the existence of a reasonable doubt that she did intend sex at the time and is now ashamed/changed her mind after the fact. Or that is was mercenary in nature. etc...
That is collapsing it a bit, isn't it? In the case of an escort (although not a porn star) I think you would have a better argument that the accused believed there was consent. However, what you are calling reasonable doubt is only an issue of credibility, which is always at issue. Essentially one has to make the decision whether to believe the accused or the victim, and all too often (as this thread has explicated) the idea of "belief" is conflated with the idea of "desserts" - like did the woman DESERVE what happened to her? Credibility, in rape cases, is always an issue, because it doesn't tend to happen in front of a lot of other people. So what you are saying is that sex workers (that is, us) are inherently less credible (well, sex workers and sluts) than "good women" - whom you represented with a nun (nice use of dichotomy, there by the way. Way to make all of our points. There are good women who keep their legs closed and are saving it for Christ, and the dirty whores who have already spread them to the world and therefore have no right to complain when the world partakes). I think you really have to explore WHY that is - like why is a porn star more likely to lie about a rape than a housewife? You are relying on a "common sense" understanding - that because (presumably) a porn has more sex with more people than the housewife, that she is more likely to acquiesce in general. That is just not true. If this kind of statistical averaging were any kind of accurate indication, we could just count up sexual partners and average out some kind of weak-ass probability (so, Victim, you've have 12 sexual partners in your life? That is 2 more than average, so statistically, you were more likely to consent. This really weakens your case. This victim only had 2. She clearly kept them shut unless they were pried open.) Indeed, your illustration - that she wanted to have sex at the time and then (for some reason) opted to punish a guy by an accusation of rape - shows an unusual attitude towards this crime - as I mentioned, you would not put the victim and accused in such equal-adversarial roles in, for example, a simple assault (I hope). The presumption of innocence does not necessarily and indelibly lead towards a presumption that only nuns can be raped.
Aside - is it really so rare for people to be convicted of crimes based on eye witness testimony? Like, if I saw someone beat me, would my testimony be similarly outrageous? What if it was my husband, so there was no robbery or obvious motive? And of course, I could have done something to "deserve" it, as well. What if I had just slept with his best friend? Or his father? What if I just refused to do his laundry? Does that create reasonable doubt? What if he swears I was okay with the beating at the time? And I'm the only one who can say that I absolutely wasn't? Reasonable doubt, yes? No?
BrainyDancerGirl
08-17-2006, 03:37 PM
Actually, eyewitness testimony is one of the BIGGEST ways a person can win their case, provided that the witness in question is seen as being credible. If you allege that you were attacked, and someone alleges that they saw you being attacked, and their version of events matches up with yours...if the jury finds them to be a credible witness, then you are golden.
When it's a he said/she said kind of thing, people get stuck. The balance is more likely to be shifted if someone who may have been a more neutral third party comes forward with information. The victim and the accused both have various self serving reasons for giving the kind of testimony that they give (victim - I want him convicted; accused - I don't want to go to jail!). If someone else saw it, people tend to think that that third person is a bit less interested in general (of course there are various nuances to this).
However, just like a good witness can help a case...a bad witness can utterly destroy it. Your side looks extremely bad if it appears that you're putting a liar on the stand to make you look good.
One of the reasons why the Duke rape case got so screwed up is, aside from other inconsistencies in the case and other pieces of evidence presented, the alleged victim's "witness" contradicted herself repeatedly. She didn't come off as credible. So sadly, you throw that into the mix, and it doesn't bode well for the alleged victim, even if something really did happen to her.
Eques
08-17-2006, 06:38 PM
I agree with your first 2 sentences but then I am lost. Of course reasonable doubt should be called into question but I don't see what one's profession has to do with them intending to have sex or not. I have met 1 stripper who claimed to be a virgin, and everyone knows of consensual affairs that many nuns have with priests and others. My best friend is a 23 year old virgin even though you would never guess it. She doesn't dress like an Amish person, you can see her in a pair of capris and a tank top out drinking. She is a gorgeous girl, model quality, she just doesn't feel like she has met the "right person" yet. Go fig (yes, I have weird friends.) I really don't see how one's chosen profession should be used as a barometer on if they wanted to have someone inside of them or not.
Red herring and pointless. Personal examples don't mean anything. I can find a hundred personal examples simply of strippers having what would seem to be very abnormal sexual preferences and activities by quoting the ladies section of this website.
And even if you do like to sleep with everything on this side of the planet I don't understand why there can't be one time that the person doesn't want to have sex and is raped.
No one, ever, will say that there can't be that one time. What people say, and what I say, is you can not be sure. Based solely on her words. Whether a stripper, prostitute, porn star or nun. What does cause it to be less believable is if that if the person has a known behavior of being promiscuous than it becomes less likely for it to be rape. That doesn't mean it wasn't. But since we can not know, we have to decide if there is a reasonable doubt. Is it reasonable to assume that maybe she just got a bit too drunk, had sex with the guy, refused to believe that she did so willingly the next morning and cried rape? Well if she has a history of heavy drinking and is promiscuous, then yes that is a reasonable doubt.
That doesn't mean she wasn't rapped. It means that we can't be sure. And if we can't be sure, we won't put the alleged criminal in jail.
I also find it amusing how people often assume that there is a financial benefit to it. Those are what civil trials are for, not criminal.
Once the criminal trial is proven, the civil trail becomes a cakewalk.
Eques
08-17-2006, 06:58 PM
That is collapsing it a bit, isn't it?
Yes it is. I don’t like writing essays.
In the case of an escort (although not a porn star) I think you would have a better argument that the accused believed there was consent. However, what you are calling reasonable doubt is only an issue of credibility, which is always at issue. Essentially one has to make the decision whether to believe the accused or the victim, and all too often (as this thread has explicated) the idea of "belief" is conflated with the idea of "desserts" - like did the woman DESERVE what happened to her? Credibility, in rape cases, is always an issue, because it doesn't tend to happen in front of a lot of other people. So what you are saying is that sex workers (that is, us) are inherently less credible (well, sex workers and sluts) than "good women" - whom you represented with a nun (nice use of dichotomy, there by the way. Way to make all of our points. There are good women who keep their legs closed and are saving it for Christ, and the dirty whores who have already spread them to the world and therefore have no right to complain when the world partakes). I think you really have to explore WHY that is - like why is a porn star more likely to lie about a rape than a housewife? You are relying on a "common sense" understanding - that because (presumably) a porn has more sex with more people than the housewife, that she is more likely to acquiesce in general. That is just not true. If this kind of statistical averaging were any kind of accurate indication, we could just count up sexual partners and average out some kind of weak-ass probability (so, Victim, you've have 12 sexual partners in your life? That is 2 more than average, so statistically, you were more likely to consent. This really weakens your case. This victim only had 2. She clearly kept them shut unless they were pried open.) Indeed, your illustration - that she wanted to have sex at the time and then (for some reason) opted to punish a guy by an accusation of rape - shows an unusual attitude towards this crime - as I mentioned, you would not put the victim and accused in such equal-adversarial roles in, for example, a simple assault (I hope). The presumption of innocence does not necessarily and indelibly lead towards a presumption that only nuns can be raped.
As a further aside, even though it is not so reasonable a doubt if the woman in question were a nun, if there is no physical evidence etc.... then it is still outrageous that you would put anyone in jail just based on the testimony of one person. I would prefer to live in a world where 1,000,000 rapists walk free because it was their word against their victims than in a world where you are assumed guilty and the testimony of a 'witness' is enough to put you in jail.
Read both my posts first.
And to further elaborate, my theoritical illustration was meant more along the lines of she got so damn drunks she consented. Woke up the next morning, believed she had been raped/slipped a ruffie/etc…
I honestly I don't give a shit if she was a porn-star who did bestiality and child-porn or a Nun who wore a chastity belt with a u-lock on it since she was six years old. I would never wish to live in a world where the court system takes them at their word in the absence of other evidence.
Aside - is it really so rare for people to be convicted of crimes based on eye witness testimony?
Yes, if there is no other evidence. If I steal a $30,000 vase from someone’s house. They see me stealing the vase and report it to the police, file a statement etc... and the police can't find my fingerprints anywhere in that house, they can't even say that anyone was there outside of the witness saying there was. In fact they find out that I have the income to afford the vase no sweat. That I have no motive for stealing it. That the person in question doesn't even have a receipt or any kind of proof they ever owned it. Then I would never be convicted, hell charges wouldn't even be filed.
In most of the situations you described there will be other types of evidence present and it would be possible to build a circumstantial case that ties it to the person. In such situations it is very possible to get a conviction. If you can't make that case... well then its not going to happen.
Eques
08-17-2006, 07:01 PM
Actually, eyewitness testimony is one of the BIGGEST ways a person can win their case, provided that the witness in question is seen as being credible. If you allege that you were attacked, and someone alleges that they saw you being attacked, and their version of events matches up with yours...if the jury finds them to be a credible witness, then you are golden.
See how I said "If there is evidence other than the word of the woman in question" and not "If there is no evidence other than the testimony of multiple witnesses"
Yes I read the rest of your post, I just feel like drawing extra attention to this rather important detail anyway.
BrainyDancerGirl
08-17-2006, 07:54 PM
What does cause it to be less believable is if that if the person has a known behavior of being promiscuous than it becomes less likely for it to be rape. That doesn't mean it wasn't. But since we can not know, we have to decide if there is a reasonable doubt. Is it reasonable to assume that maybe she just got a bit too drunk, had sex with the guy, refused to believe that she did so willingly the next morning and cried rape? Well if she has a history of heavy drinking and is promiscuous, then yes that is a reasonable doubt.
And this is the EXACT attitude that we're trying to fight against. The fact that the victim's sexual history is put on trial rather than the behavior of the accuser. The reason people have a "reasonable doubt" is because people think that women who are sexually promiscuous or in the sex industry, as a result of their sexual openness, CANNOT be raped. People think, "Oh, well she fucks around all the time, so why should this time be different?" THAT's the FUCKED UP attitude that made me pissed off enough to write about this in the FIRST place! She's is NOT statistically less likely to have been raped . In many instances, women in the sex industry are MORE likely to be raped than your "average" woman. You should refer back to the argument between myself and AZCustomer...we actually both agreed that women in the sex industry face a greater danger of sexual violence, and numerous others chimed in to that effect as well.
You will find NO OTHER CRIME where they focus on the victim like this! The whole POINT of supposed "rape shield" laws is to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Yet, thanks to persistent attitudes such as this with so-called "normal folk", rape shield laws are a joke. Until people start seeing that rape is NOT a crime that someone "brings unto themselves" but instead see it as someone VIOLATING someone else's PERSONAL SANCTITY, we will continue to have to deal with this kind of BULLSHIT attitude.
Eques
08-17-2006, 09:37 PM
And this is the EXACT attitude that we're trying to fight against. The fact that the victim's sexual history is put on trial rather than the behavior of the accuser. The reason people have a "reasonable doubt" is because people think that women who are sexually promiscuous or in the sex industry, as a result of their sexual openness, CANNOT be raped. People think, "Oh, well she fucks around all the time, so why should this time be different?" THAT's the FUCKED UP attitude that made me pissed off enough to write about this in the FIRST place! She's is NOT statistically less likely to have been raped . In many instances, women in the sex industry are MORE likely to be raped than your "average" woman. You should refer back to the argument between myself and AZCustomer...we actually both agreed that women in the sex industry face a greater danger of sexual violence, and numerous others chimed in to that effect as well.
Wait, the attitude you are fighting against is that someone is presumed innocent until proven guilty? The attitude you are fighting against is that it is on the accuser to prove their case and not on the accused to prove the accuser wrong?
The reason people have a reasonable doubt is because you can never, and should never, take the statements of the supposed victim as 100% fact, or even 1% truth. In the absence of other evidence the accused should never be convicted on the say-so of the supposed victim.
And perhaps you missed the part where I said "I honestly don't give a shit if she was a porn-star who did bestiality and child-porn or a Nun who wore a chastity belt with a u-lock on it since she was six years old. I would never wish to live in a world where the court system takes them at their word in the absence of other evidence."
You will find NO OTHER CRIME where they focus on the victim like this! The whole POINT of supposed "rape shield" laws is to prevent this kind of thing from happening. Yet, thanks to persistent attitudes such as this with so-called "normal folk", rape shield laws are a joke. Until people start seeing that rape is NOT a crime that someone "brings unto themselves" but instead see it as someone VIOLATING someone else's PERSONAL SANCTITY, we will continue to have to deal with this kind of BULLSHIT attitude.
And perhaps you missed the part where I said "In regards to the moral implications and such. Yes it is outrageous. Yes it is hideous. Yes it is horrible. And yes the line of reasoning described in the original post is atrocious."
I honestly don't get a shit if being the sex industry makes you more likely to be raped. Something else you need to understand is that it is in fact entirely possible that being in the sex industry makes you more likely to be raped, and more likely to lie about being raped. I don't know, and as I said at the beginning of this paragraph, I don't care. Likewise being a fairly promiscuous woman who drinks a lot also makes you more likely to black out drunk, give consent and then think you didn't. And no, I am not saying that the first equates to the second. But I also don't care about the second. A woman's word is not evidence, a man's word is not evidence.
To convict anyone based on the word of the supposed victim is simply wrong. In fact it is as wrong as the attitude that a stripper who is raped had it coming.
Jenny
08-17-2006, 11:28 PM
Yes it is. I don’t like writing essays.
Read both my posts first.
I did read both your posts. And I still thought my critique applied.
And to further elaborate, my theoritical illustration was meant more along the lines of she got so damn drunks she consented. Woke up the next morning, believed she had been raped/slipped a ruffie/etc…
This is an interesting idea. Think about how drunk you would have to be to actually believe that you had been raped or drugged. Are you still capable of consent?
Yes, if there is no other evidence. If I steal a $30,000 vase from someone’s house. They see me stealing the vase and report it to the police, file a statement etc... and the police can't find my fingerprints anywhere in that house, they can't even say that anyone was there outside of the witness saying there was. In fact they find out that I have the income to afford the vase no sweat. That I have no motive for stealing it. That the person in question doesn't even have a receipt or any kind of proof they ever owned it. Then I would never be convicted, hell charges wouldn't even be filed.
Hmm. However, to be more analogous to the situation of which we are speaking, you would not be contesting that the vase had formerly been theirs. You would be arguing that the vase had be sold or gifted to you. In that case, you would certainly have to prove that such an agreement existed. If you could not, you would, at the very least, have to give it back. Your analogy seems to work better if the accused is claiming that no intercourse took place, not that it was consensual, that he (or she) thought it was consensual because the victim was a dirty whore, or that dirty whores can't NOT consent. Just saying.
Also, don't you think there is an inherent problem comparing property crimes against crimes against the person?
Jenny
08-17-2006, 11:30 PM
Is it reasonable to assume that maybe she just got a bit too drunk, had sex with the guy, refused to believe that she did so willingly the next morning and cried rape? Well if she has a history of heavy drinking and is promiscuous, then yes that is a reasonable doubt.
I don't see the connection. Does she have a history of being drunk, then promiscuous and then claiming rape? To me if she has a history of promiscuity in which she does NOT claim that she didn't consent, it would indicate the opposite - that this time was an anomaly. You are again making really, really questionable "common" sense assumption that are really much more common than sensible.
IvytheStripper
08-17-2006, 11:59 PM
Eques and AZ need to go eat a dick. Whether anything would stand up in court, whatever someone was wearing, regardless of thier job NOONE deserves to be violated and should be believed. Seriously WHY would someone with a shred of sanity lie about that. That's not the kind of attention anyone, even a really unhinged person would want.
VenusGoddess
08-18-2006, 12:32 AM
I've been in the legal field for a long time and I can tell you that although the vast majority of you think that this escort that the OP is speaking about did not deserve to be raped (and you would be right) the very fact comes down to this: When it comes to sex work, the vast majority of people look at the profession as sinful/wrong/shameful/and full of blame. They would more willingly put the blame on the person who is not against using their bodies to make money. I've seen juries acquit the rapist because his defense was that it was consensual and then she regretted it. I've seen juries acquit because "all strippers lie". I've seen juries acquit because the rapist was the boyfriend and how do you rape someone who consensually had sex before?
It's the very reason I never reported mine. I had medical proof, but it was blown off as "rough sex"...after that, I said fuck it. I refused to get on the stand and get raped by the defense lawyer.
There are certain risks that come along with every profession. With the sex industry, it is rape and discrimination. If that is not something that you think you can handle, then it's not the field for you. It doesn't make it right, but it makes it reality. And the very reality right now, is that the sex field is becoming MORE hostile than ever. The lines are crossing more (more extras...more everything) and so the chances of "proving" a stripper/porn star/etc was raped are 1 in 100.
Of course, at the same time...the more focus you put on a subject, the more energy and life you breathe into it. And the cycle continues.
Eques
08-18-2006, 01:11 AM
Alright, I'm not going to bother addressing every single minute point being made here, because it is merely mincing words about, IMO, crap.
I will simply repeat something I've said many times, and you have all ignored many times.
I fundamentally do not care if the woman is a stripper. I don’t care if she does bestiality porn and has even done hard-core rape scenes in porn or if she is a Nun. Her word counts for nothing, and should count for nothing, in a courtroom if the only evidence is her word.
Being a stripper may make her less credible than a nun. Being an escort may make her less credible than a mother of five. Regardless of all these situations the word of the stripper, of the nun, of the escort and of the mother of five is NOT enough evidence to convict anyone of rape if there is no other supporting evidence.
And I will say this again, the assumption that a stripper, escort, prostitute or a saint who wears mini-skirts and a bikini top to the bar 'deserves' being raped is bullshit and fucked up.
One more thing though, simply because its a bit off the basic rape topic;
Hmm. However, to be more analogous to the situation of which we are speaking, you would not be contesting that the vase had formerly been theirs. You would be arguing that the vase had be sold or gifted to you. In that case, you would certainly have to prove that such an agreement existed. If you could not, you would, at the very least, have to give it back. Your analogy seems to work better if the accused is claiming that no intercourse took place, not that it was consensual, that he (or she) thought it was consensual because the victim was a dirty whore, or that dirty whores can't NOT consent. Just saying.
Possession is 9/10ths of the law. I'm not going to give a definitive answer on the matter but I doubt you’d have to give it back.
Also, don't you think there is an inherent problem comparing property crimes against crimes against the person?
Not really, and besides which the theft of someone’s property is a crime against the person.
carolina6
08-18-2006, 01:38 AM
I hate to jump into something so late in the game, but I do have a comment or two.
When it comes to a woman who has a history of drinking a lot, sleeping with a lot of people, it leads to people thinking that because she was statistically more likely to be raped, that she should have "expected" it, or somehow known better. By saying statistically more likely, I just mean that a girl who goes out to parties or bars 4 nights a week and is around a lot of men, is more likely to be raped than a girl who stays at home and watches television every night. She's around more men, especially men who are drinking. Of course every woman has the right to do whatever she wants every night, and the girl who goes out every night should have every right to have sex or not have sex.
In a perfect world, these two would be treated the same were they raped and reported it. Unfortunately, the girl who parties is seen as participating in risky behavior, and others begin to place some burden of guilt on her.
It is a fucked up attitude to think that anyone who was raped can deserve it or be asking for it in any way. Well, I guess a lot of rapists probably do end up getting raped once they're in prison. Do they deserve it? There's a good question.
Jenny
08-18-2006, 06:00 AM
When it comes to a woman who has a history of drinking a lot, sleeping with a lot of people, it leads to people thinking that because she was statistically more likely to be raped, that she should have "expected" it, or somehow known better. By saying statistically more likely, I just mean that a girl who goes out to parties or bars 4 nights a week and is around a lot of men, is more likely to be raped than a girl who stays at home and watches television every night.
Again, that is not really true. What is being constructed as "high risk" behaviour does not actually match up with most rape victims who are usually victimized by someone close to them.
Alright, I'm not going to bother addressing every single minute point being made here, because it is merely mincing words about, IMO, crap Because why bother addressing actual points when you can just bandy about vague generalizations and cliches ("Posession is 9/10s of the law"?). Anyway, I think that illustrates your point perfectly - that cliches and perceptions are much more important than actual facts.
Eques
08-18-2006, 06:59 PM
Because why bother addressing actual points when you can just bandy about vague generalizations and cliches ("Posession is 9/10s of the law"?). Anyway, I think that illustrates your point perfectly - that cliches and perceptions are much more important than actual facts.
No, because you're going after things I don't care about. Whether or not a stripper is more or less credible in court doesn't matter to me at all. Her word is worthless no matter how credible she is. She might be somewhat less credible, and she might be more at risk. But so what? How does that apply to a court-room situation?
And in regards to the possession. I now have the vase. I don't even have to put up a defense as to why I have it. The accuser has to put up a well-constructed provable case for why it belongs to him and not to me. Him saying ‘that guy stole it’, with no evidence, is not such a case.You may not like it, but in the situation I've described I'm going to walk out of that courtroom with that very nice vase, in large part because it is in fact currently in my possession. The burden of proof is and always will be on the part of the accuser, not the accused.
But since you’re going to bitch about me not addressing your points, while you simultaneously ignore, for about the 4th time, my own…
This is an interesting idea. Think about how drunk you would have to be to actually believe that you had been raped or drugged. Are you still capable of consent?
I've had to drive enough hung-over girls home in the morning who have 0 memory of the previous night that I know its not an uncommon occurrence for the college female aged 18-22. Fortunately the ones that get so drunk at my house go to sleep in my room, with a locked door and I sleep out on my sofa. I could have easily had sex with any number of these girls, with them being drunkenly eager for it. Would it be rape? I doubt it, but it wouldn't be right however. Regardless if I had done so, and they woke up next morning it wouldn't hard for them to think they were raped.
I don't see the connection. Does she have a history of being drunk, then promiscuous and then claiming rape? To me if she has a history of promiscuity in which she does NOT claim that she didn't consent, it would indicate the opposite - that this time was an anomaly. You are again making really, really questionable "common" sense assumption that are really much more common than sensible.
Once again you fail to notice that I don’t care if that assumption is correct. I don’t care if it makes it an anomaly or part of a pattern.
Do you perhaps finally see why I didn't want to bother? You keep on pounding on something I do not care about whatsoever. And you keep on ignoring that I feel fundamentally the same way as everyone else in this thread. I'm just not willing to let emotion blind me to the fact that we are dealing with court. Accusing someone does not make them guilty.
The population of this website tends to IMMEDIATELY side with the woman in ALL rape cases. There is almost not thought given to the possibility that she might be pointing the finger at the wrong man. That she might be lying. That she might not remember things clearly, etc... Instead its 'string that rapist up by his balls' just because some woman points her finger at some man. Its that attitude I find atrocious. Because it leads to a system where you can accuse anyone of anything and punish them in accordance to what they've been accused of, not what they're found guilty of.
So Jenny, instead of quoting one aspect of my post and ignoring every-thing else. Why don't you try and demonstrate why we should take the word of a stripper, or of a house-mom, or of a nun, as 100% factual evidence that can be used to put a potentially innocent person in jail?
IvytheStripper
08-18-2006, 11:53 PM
Actually a woman with little or no sexual history is in my mind more likely to regret a sexual encounter sufficiently to cry rape than a "promiscuous" one, but that's just me.
Jenny
08-19-2006, 05:50 AM
Eques - little bunny - I'm pretty sure I already addressed the point to which you allude by simply telling you that I'm pretty sure that you are MISTAKEN and your analogy is off. Frankly, I don't think you adequately addressed MY points. I wasn't going to say anything though. I didn't want to embarass you by underlining. Because underlining things adds force and would make me right. If there was no evidence of a sexual encounter, obviously there would be no rape trial. The scenario of which we are speaking is one in which there a) is evidence of a sexual encounter or b) the sexual encounter is admitted to, and the accused claims that there was consent. That makes it markedly different from your vase analogy. Plus - I find this "it is better for 1 million guilty rapists to go free than to convict one innocent man" schtik a little less compelling than the "1 in 10" in the original. 1 million is a lot of rapists.
The reason some people might focus on one aspect of your post is because it is the most pertinent to the thread. And, really, you posted it, you put it out there and people are responding to it. When you think about it, who the hell do you think you are to order people on what to concentrate their attention? There is something YOU don't care about, so nobody else should care either?
Eques
08-19-2006, 02:52 PM
Eques - little bunny - I'm pretty sure I already addressed the point to which you allude by simply telling you that I'm pretty sure that you are MISTAKEN and your analogy is off. Frankly, I don't think you adequately addressed MY points.
Please feel free to draw attention them. You may be 'pretty sure', but you are also pretty wrong. Addressing point is not ‘you’re wrong, next.’, Addressing a point requires showing someone why their logic doesn’t work. But then I should not expect a ‘little bunny’ such as yourself to actually address points when you can throw insults around.
The analogy holds. Your ignorance of the legal system or the scenarios being used may cause you to think it doesn't, that’s your problem, not mine.
I wasn't going to say anything though. I didn't want to embarass you by underlining. Because underlining things adds force and would make me right.
Please point out any point of yours you think I have ignored and I will address it. My underlining has nothing to do with adding strength or 'making me right.' It’s simply to draw attention to the only piece of the post I care much about. You can continue to harp on any number of things I don't care about, but doing so while directing it at me is worthless. I entertain the argument so far as much as I find it a distraction and because you seem to attach some much importance to it, yet I still don’t care about it.
If there was no evidence of a sexual encounter, obviously there would be no rape trial.
A glimmer of understanding
The scenario of which we are speaking is one in which there a) is evidence of a sexual encounter or b) the sexual encounter is admitted to, and the accused claims that there was consent. That makes it markedly different from your vase analogy.
And then you lost it....
No evidence, no trail, no conviction. The scenario of which we are speaking there is neither a) nor b). There is only a woman saying 'he raped me', in which case since there is neither A, nor B, the trail isn't going to happen in the first place, and if it were to occur it’d go nowhere. If there is evidence of a, the man is generally going to always say it was either consensual or someone else raped her. At which point the woman still can't be taken at her word that she was raped unless there is some other evidence of rape. That’s what makes winning a rape trial very very hard.
As a side note, this is also why the vase analogy works. In the vase, there is no evidence it was stolen, and there is no evidence that the accused did the stealing if it was stolen. The trail would not occur as the only evidence is the testimony of the owner of the vase saying “I’ve had that vase for years, and he took it, I want it back.” The stealer of the Vase doesn’t have to say “he gave it to me”; He doesn’t need to say a damned thing.
Plus - I find this "it is better for 1 million guilty rapists to go free than to convict one innocent man" schtik a little less compelling than the "1 in 10" in the original. 1 million is a lot of rapists.
The 'schtik' as you call it has nothing to do with the injustice associated with putting the innocent man in jail. It has to do with how society would change if you are going to allow the court system to convict people in the manner advocated by this thread.
The reason some people might focus on one aspect of your post is because it is the most pertinent to the thread. And, really, you posted it, you put it out there and people are responding to it. When you think about it, who the hell do you think you are to order people on what to concentrate their attention?
If they want to keep on directing posts at me, they should be responding to the part I care about. If they are going to continue with all this crap about 'but strippers, prostitutes and escorts are as credible as a nun, whine whine whine' I'm just going to walk away from it.
You've got a few options, you can agree with my legal point. You can disagree and try to show why someone should be taken at their word in the absence of other evidence. You can simply disagree and present no reason why which is akin to just walking away. The last option is the same as admitting defeat and would be the same as the first, but I'm sure you would chalk it up to righteous indignation or some such.
VenusGoddess
08-19-2006, 04:32 PM
Ok...this is done.