-
Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
From the article:
Quote:
# If you do not get a girl drunk or high but you know she is when you have sex you have committed rape.
# If you are unaware that a girl is drunk or high and you have sex with her you could be charged with rape.
# Even if you too are drunk or high when you have sex with a girl who is drunk or high you could be charged with rape. It is not a sufficient defense to say, ?I was wasted too!?
Basically, the law states that a woman cannot consent to sex while intoxicated. But a man can? If two drunk people have sex, isn't the woman "raping" the man just as much as the man is "raping" the woman? Or is the subtext of the law that women can't be held responsible for their actions while drunk but men can? Isn't this insulting and demeaning to women? We charge people with vehicular manslaughter when they drink and drive and end up killing someone. So, a drunk person can consent to drive, but a drunk woman can't consent to have sex?
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Not to switch the subject around or get off topic, but is it really possible for a woman to rape a man? I'm on the fence with this one.....
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Of course it is POSSIBLE for a woman to rape a man. Example: 200 lb bodybuilder woman could probably rape a toothpick looking 120 lb man. But, this really isn't the point of the thread.
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
I do see your point. I have actually written an essay on rape myths for uni before and did a lot of research on the topic.
The actual crime of rape is totally centered around the issue of consent. Lack of consent to sexual intercourse (and in certain states such as mine this includes digital penetration) = rape.
It is a very difficult crime to prove because the man will argue that their was consent and the woman will argue that there was not.
As to the issue that you mentioned that a woman cannot consent to sex while intoxicated - well in Melbourne (I am not read up on laws anywhere else on this issue) the woman would have to be intoxicated to the point of being unconscious for this to be relied on as the sole proof of a lack of consent.
It's always going to be different whether it was a man or a woman. Women are far more victimised by rape than men are. I do believe that a man can be raped but Im saying it's more common for a woman to be raped. Because we are the one's being penetrated and because we are usually less physically strong than men.
In melbourne a woman can also withdraw consent after penetration and if the man continues to penetrate this also meets the definition of rape.
The most interesting of cases that I have read are mistake as to consent - identity.
There was one case where a man stuck throught the open window and had sex with a woman. She claimed that she thought the man was her boyfriend because it was dark and she had been drinking.
It was argued that she consented to having sex with her boyfriend and not the stranger and hence he had raped her.
Surprisingly he was convicted.
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Here's an interesting bit of info - men get erect when they're scared. Point a gun at a man? Erection. Use erection. Rape.
There ya go.
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Unconscious, yes I consider that rape and the guy should get charged for rape. Now, I may be wrong, but I THINK that here in the US, the woman does NOT have to be unconscious for the man to be charged with rape. Just a simple high or drunk can do the trick. (I think)
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Lilithmorrigan, I was gonna bring that up! Yes, surprisingly, men do get erections at certain times for reasons that can not be explained, and yes a man could get an erection from a rape and really not agree to what is happening even if he is erect. Seriously.
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
I echo all that jaizaine says.
Here in the US, it is fairly common that the law treats women as victims more than men. The common example is statutory rape. In the US, if two fifteen year olds have consentual sex, the boy has committed rape (since the law states that minors can't consent) but the girl has not, as stat rape does not apply to women/girls having sex with boys.
What gives you say? Well, this discrepency in the law was heard by the US Supreme Court in the 70s (the case is called Michael M). The Court said that all these differences are a-ok (age, intoxication, etc.) The justification they used (I am not making this up, so don't blame me) was that women need more protection from the law because the possibility of pregnancy means that rape can be a more damaging crime to a woman. For example, if two fifteen year olds do it, the girl can get pregnant, the boy can't, so we have to protect the girl more.
As the case is good law, it allows for similar situations (two people having consentual sex while intoxicated) to be held as rape for the man, not the woman.
Whether or not this is fair is still up for debate in ciminal law circles.
Siber
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
One main reason I find these laws to be silly is because LOTS of women LOVE to get drunk and have sex, and I agree, I enjoy sex more when I am drunk as well. So, by law, LOTS of women are getting "raped."
I don't buy it.
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
I think it's one area where equality between the sexes is not the way to go.
Women are the victims of rape.
Women equally get raped by the court process.
That's why so few victims of rape come forward because their character will be dragged through the mud using rape myths to prove that she asked for it.
In Australia rape shield laws were supposed to protect the victims character from being used to prove consent. The old rape myths such as "she asked for it, she was a tease" or she was promiscuous should not be relevant at trial.
It is also a rape myth that men cannot control themselves and so when sex happens it is always the woman's fault for turning the man on.
Rape shield laws are gotten around by defence lawyers by producing the victims counselling records where she might have revealed guilty feelings and blamed herself (all natural reactions to the trauma) to "prove" that she was to blame for it.
It's a terrible thing for a victim to have to go through.
So while I do understand where u r coming from, I think it's already a hard enough crime to prove and even harder to get convictions.
I do agree that men can be raped because it's hard not to have a physiological reaction even to fear as LM pointed out.
However as I said, rape is hard enough to prove without throwing into the equation the fact that women should be equal to men and be able to give adequate consent when intoxicated.
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Its hard to find a statistic on men being raped by women or even by other men because they are usually so reluctant to report it. But I'm sure it happens frightfully often.
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KentuckyMysteryMan
One main reason I find these laws to be silly is because LOTS of women LOVE to get drunk and have sex, and I agree, I enjoy sex more when I am drunk as well. So, by law, LOTS of women are getting "raped."
I don't buy it.
Ok I have not read your laws, but without having read them I am going to have to say I dont think this is quite the situation.
Of course you can have sex drunk. But as the male you have to make sure she is consenting. Now a woman is not raped just because she was drunk when you had sex with her. It is only if she was so intoxicated that she could not consent to the act that it becomes rape. I think u will find that where u r from as well, it is still a very difficult crime to prove.
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Jaiz, I agree that women need more protection against this than men. But, to me equality is all or nothing. It shouldn't be equality for most things, it should be for all things. They shouldn't turn around and say for certain things, "Oh, we'll let this slide." Because then, it is not equality.
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
I do know where you're coming from. But sometimes equality is not a good thing. Equal treatment can disadvantage people at times.
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
KentuckyMysteryMan
Basically, the law states that a woman cannot consent to sex while intoxicated. But a man can?
Does the law say that? Where? The guy who wrote the article is a foster parent and volunteer youth worker - not a specialist in any legal field (and his agenda is very clear - to promote responsible sexual behaviour - bravo to him, but he cites no actual authorities). To appropriately discuss the topic you require either the statute or the case in which the issue was decided. It is very fact specific.
Quote:
If two drunk people have sex, isn't the woman "raping" the man just as much as the man is "raping" the woman? Or is the subtext of the law that women can't be held responsible for their actions while drunk but men can?
No. The subtext of the law is likely (if there is such a law, which we don't know because there is no such law in front of us here) an acknowledgment of the simply social reality that men (especially young men) deliberately get women (especially young women) drunk with the specific intention of undermining her ability to make decisions, and that maybe throwing back a couple yourself in the process doesn't change that intention nor does it change the actual result.
Quote:
I do agree that men can be raped because it's hard not to have a physiological reaction even to fear as LM pointed out.
I actually always think this is a weird thing to say. Because I don't think evidence of arousal is evidence of consent. The fact that the guy might have had an erection, and why he might have an erection is not really as relevant as whether or not he said "yes" or "no".
Like there have been times that I've been with a guy, fooling around and been turned on, but still not wanted to have sex. It would be pretty appalling if the fact that I had been aroused before that could vitiate consent. Now, we obviously don't expect guys to say no; we expect them to be unselective sex fiends - and that's fine, but I don't think you can take AWAY their right to say no.
BTW Siber - hasn't any case detailing rape between minors been displaced by statute in most states? I mean most places have an "age of consent, and ability to consent to people within certain age brackets below that" - that is, if you are 15 you are capable of consenting to people within two years of your age, or whatever?
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
[QUOTE=Jenny;1117191that intention nor does it change the actual result.
I actually always think this is a weird thing to say. Because I don't think evidence of arousal is evidence of consent. The fact that the guy might have had an erection, and why he might have an erection is not really as relevant as whether or not he said "yes" or "no".
?[/QUOTE]
That's exactly the point. There is not necessarily consent just because there is arousal.
LM was saying it's physically possible.
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
True, some guys do get girls drunk just to have sex with them, but also, alot of girls get drunk to have an EXCUSE to have sex.
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
You asked for the subtext of the law - I gave one that was likely. ^^^I don't see how this is relevant.
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jaizaine
That's exactly the point. There is not necessarily consent just because there is arousal.
LM was saying it's physically possible.
No, certainly, I agree. I just always think we get a little sidetracked on the issue of whether or not men can maintain erections through fear or whatever, and then forget that arousal doesn't equal consent. So I'm throwing it out there, that it doesn't really matter; what matters is whether or not the guy agreed to the sex, not whether he was aroused at the time he refused it. I mean, I don't think anyone would want evidence of a woman's lubrication brought in to vitiate the fact that she said "no".
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
^^^
eeek u dont wanna know what sort of icky things they try to use to prove a woman's consent. One case I read where a husband initiated the gang rape of his wife - he brough home drunk men from a pub and they beat and raped her. They used "evidence" that she liked rough sex and the court heard that her and her husband liked to do a bit of s&m. As if that equals her wanting to be gangraped. AH Sickening.
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jaizaine
^^^
eeek u dont wanna know what sort of icky things they try to use to prove a woman's consent. One case I read where a husband initiated the gang rape of his wife - he brough home drunk men from a pub and they beat and raped her. They used "evidence" that she liked rough sex and the court heard that her and her husband liked to do a bit of s&m. As if that equals her wanting to be gangraped. AH Sickening.
How recent was that?
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
About 4 years ago in Melbourne. The main thing that my essay was about (which is why I have read up on it) is the fact that defence lawyers are using counselling records of victims to show that the victim blames herself. I swear this stuff makes me furious. So now victims not only dont want to report rapes, they are scared to get counselling because they can get a court ordered release of the records.
:'(
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Quote:
Originally Posted by
absolutbliss
Not to switch the subject around or get off topic, but is it really possible for a woman to rape a man? I'm on the fence with this one.....
I'd guess probably, at least for a guy that is easily sexually aroused. While it's idealized to think that everything our bodies do is under our intellectual control, I think the reality is that it's a bit more grey then that. The question is akin to asking if a woman get's wet at all during rape, does that mean... and of course most of us would say no, that's a physical reaction, and it's not relevant. What is relevant is consent.
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
Jenny- Very right about statutes putting loopholes into Michael M (though some states haven't, believe it or not). Michael M, however, is still good law in that it states that it is Constitutionally acceptable to treat the same behavior differently when conducted by men and women.
And, again, the main focus of the court wasn't rape stats, it was the possibility of pregnancy.
Siber
-
Re: Does anyone think that certain rape laws are insulting to women?
It's interesting that pregnancy is the main issue there. I would actually propose that we are ignoring the most obvious answer, which is that rape is "traditionally" thought of as a kind of property crime. It is making women and girls unchaste; men and boys don't have chastity to protect (at least not the same kind of chastity - I would suggest that forced sodomy would engender a similar response). Although it is no longer "official" I think it still informs many of our intuitions about whether or not a crime has been committed, what kind of crime and how bad a crime.