(Stolen Topic)

There is a thread going on elsewhere on the subject of rape and whether or not the victim ever share's some of the blame for the act.

I realize men can be raped... but since this is a primarily female issue, I put it here.

So, can you, in any circumstance, envision where a woman can be partially responsible for her own rape?

I cannot. No means no.

I'm personally on the fence.

No does mean no and should always be heeded.

But...

It doesn't and it's not in every situation though.

All women know this.

With this knowledge is it not reasonable to expect and encourage women to take steps to protect themselves?

It is never a woman's fault she got raped, but there are some cases where she could have prevented it with an ounce of common sense.

madmax I agree with Danya, no means no. I have a question to you. What common sense could this have been prevented with? Rape is just that. Do you think a woman knows in advance that she going to be raped? How the Hell is she going to stop it? I am confused. please enlighten me

I can think of circumstances where a woman is partially responsible.

Suppose a young woman dresses to draw attention to her bosom and thighs and goes into a club and tries to find a man, do you not think she is partially responsible for turning on a man's sex drive?

Or a college lady hanging out at a frat house on a Friday night with alcohol running everywhere, do you not think she is at risk for being a target of a drunk frat boy?

In cases like these, the women is definitely partially responsible.

People make choices everyday....sometimes those choices put them in situations where there is risk.

I don't believe any woman asks to be raped, but if she puts herself in positions where her actions expand the possibilities on an already underlying hazard, such as otseng's examples, then I agree the woman is partially responsible.

Isn't it a man's responsibility to control his own sex drive regardless of what the influences are around him?

I'm not saying that the man is off the hook, of course he's responsible for his actions. But in this case, it's the woman who took some steps towards the direction of a risk of rape. You can't keep dangling a worm in front of a fish and not expect a bite. Likewise, a woman cannot keep flashing her goods and not expect a man's sex drive to be aroused.

So, women should cover up their "goods", so that men don't become sexually aroused? I'm still not seeing the logic here. If I'm walking down the street in a pair of sandals, and a man with a foot fetish becomes aroused, is that my fault?

Men who rape women make that decision consciously. It shouldn't matter if his surroundings are prevocative in his own mind. No means no.

It shouldn't matter??? If a woman dresses up like she's asking for sex and says no, she's sending a mixed message. If she sends a consistent message by dressing modestly, not going into bars with drunk men, and saying no to sex, then I'd say the woman is not responsible.

Everyone has a different concept of modesty. There are some Middle Eastern countries where hejab is required to be worn, and baring a wrist or an ankle is construed as being sexual. This is learned behavior, and the same thing can be said about the behavior of men in the United States. In Europe, they have nude beaches, and as far as I know, they don't have a huge problem with rape in that environment, because the human body is natural, and nudity isn't necessarily looked at in a sexual manner. I think the problem is that the United States, even with all of the sex on television and in the movies, is sexually repressed and immature.

I personally reject this whole provocation or partial responsibility argument. If you buy a loaded BMW and leave it in a parking lot are you provoking potential car thieves? If you buy nice furniture for your house and a home theater system are you asking to be robbed?

Even if one were to accept a "partial responsibilty" argument (say you left the keys in your Beemer or failed to install a home security system), does that mitigate the crime? Does that make the car thief or burglar less responsible for his/her actions? Should they receive a lighter sentence because you were "provocative"? No? Then why raise such a specious argument when it comes to rape?

As far as I'm concerned a woman could walk naked into a drunken bachelor party with a sign around her neck saying "I need it bad, baby" and it would still be rape if someone had sex with her without her consent - and it would be no less a rape than in the case of an eighty-year-old nun who was knocked unconscious. Rape is rape. The behavior of the victim prior to the rape is totally irrelevant.

Who's raising such arguments? I'm not arguing a rapist is less responsible for his actions. I'm not arguing rapists should receive a lighter sentence cause the victim was provocative. All I'm arguing is the original question - "So, can you, in any circumstance, envision where a woman can be partially responsible for her own rape?"



Of course rape is rape. Who said it isn't? I agree, in both cases it's rape.



This is where I disagree. There are some circumstances where a woman contributes to increasing the likelihood of rape.

In your example, the nun had no responsibility in the rape. The "I need it bad baby" definitely has a certain level responsibility if she gets raped.

Either the guy can control himself or he can't. It may be harder for a guy to not have sex with a woman if she is laid out naked in front of him but if she says no it means no. Does that mean the woman is a tease? Probably, but it still doesn't give anyone the right to rape her.

If not to mitigate the responsibility of the perpetrator, why is the issue of partial responsibility or provocation raised at all? It seems to be somehow assumed that the rapist is less responsible if the woman is partially responsible. Is this a purely semantic discussion in some moral void? Why do we not have these sorts of discussions about theft? If you leave your keys in your car, you are "partially responsible" if it gets stolen. So? If a woman leaves her underwear at home, she is "partially responsible" if she gets raped. So?

Exactly, Werz. That's what I was trying to get out but couldn't articulate.

Why are we debating this? ... Because we're on a debate forum?

Why was this question first posed? I guess MM would be the one to answer that.

As to your question of "So?", the reason I point out that women can be partially responsible for rape is because I believe women should not underestimate themselves and should not overestimate men. Not all men have mastery over their desires. And women should be aware that they need to avoid situations where they increase the risk of unconsensual sex.

Would you leave a hundred dollar bill taped to your steering wheel with your windows down and doors unlocked in the middle of a packed mall parking lot? Uh, no.

Would you go on vacation with your windows and doors open, lights on and jewelry and valuables convieniently left on the dining room table? Uh, no.

Would you walk around in the bad part of town after dark with a wad of cash in one hand and the keys to a lexus in the other, wrists draped with rolex watches? Uh, no.

Would you leave your purse or wallet on the barstool or bar when you take a bathroom break? Uh, no.

Why do people take SUCH pains with material belongings and so much less with our person? Everything above can be replaced. A rape free life cannot. I protect my body far better than I do my things, I value it more.

Not all men have mastery over their desires. And women should be aware that they need to avoid situations where they increase the risk of unconsensual sex.

This sounds like the mans problem. And rather than call it unconsensual sex why not just say RAPE?

This is like me saying that my sons friends come over to spend the night...even if they are just teens, they shouldn't walk around in their boxers or I may not be able to control myself. Bahhhahahhaa.

Because most people never ever want to be robbed. Most people do, however, wish to attract sexual partners. Flirtatious behavior, revealing clothes, and provocative conversation can all be part of various courtship rituals. And you're right: none of the above should be treated as open invitations for nonconsensual sex. Some women (and men) indulge in overtly sexual dress and behavior in order to provoke a sexual response - but it should still be their option to screen those who respond. I'm not saying that anyone should risk sending overtly sexual signals in potentially volatile situations, but if they do, it is no excuse for sexual predators to consider such signals open season - and I still wouldn't consider this "partial responsibility".

Actually, when my sons friends come over to spend the night... Maybe I'd better not comment on this, after all.

Please do. I need another good laugh.

I think the problem is some men only think with one thing and that is not their brain. I don't care what the woman is wearing or not wearing. No means no and Rape is a crime. Should she be held responsible? Of course not. What about the men who raped little girls and sometimes little babies? What could possibly turn on a grown man to do that? I think these men just need to keep their "Brain" zipped in their pants. There is no excuse for rape of any kind!

Well, rape isn't really about sex as much as it is about power, right? That being the case, I'm afraid that these guys might be thinking with their brains - or their crippled psyches or whatever - and those who rape children or infants, God save us, are just that much sicker - more insecure, more desperate, more psychotic - than those who attack more mature women.

I agree wertz. But the original debate was a woman part of the blame for being raped. Yes these men who raped women are sick, and men who rape little girls or babies are even sicker. It still comes down to the starting thread are some women to blame for example what they wear, walk like, talk like, look like, etc. No! If she is not consenting it comes down to the fact again "no means no", plain and simple. And for the men who raped women then they have to control themselves. And for those men you are not thinking with your brain!

The idea that the temptation should enter into it only takes away from individual responsibility. I can't think of any situation that would cause me as a woman to not be able to control myself and rape a man that wasn't willing. I don't subscribe to the notion that men have 'needs' that MUST be fulfilled any more than a woman does. It's just an excuse.

a woman dressing sexy is not asking for rape women are naturally wanting to be beautiful and attractive in the sexually repressed US the rape rate is higher than in europe where they are sexually liberated

I don't care if a woman was buck naked in a bar full of drunk men. Rape is rape. No means no. That being said. Men are a lot stronger than most women. Can she prevent rape from some sicko who may out weigh her and be a foot taller than her? Hell no. Can she prevent the rape if she wore 3 layers of clothes? I don't think so. Men who rape women are rapist period. I don't care what they wear, where they go. These men who are rapist will rape either way.

If I flash a roll of $100s in a bar am I to blame if I get robbed? No. Am I more likely to get robbed? Yes.

The comparison doesn't work.

People rob you because they need money (I'm not excusing it).

People rape women for control and out of extreme anger. They don't rape for lack of getting laid.

The only way a woman might be "asking" to be raped is... if she actually asks to be raped, at which point it really isn't rape, it's some sort of strange fetish, and as such, consensual.

Those who associate rape with sex or the need for sex are simply not understanding what rape is.

No really does mean no. Take "date rape," for example. If a man is told no, and then goes ahead and does it anyway, he is a criminal. Clothes don't enter into it.

You ask for a loan from an aquaintance, and he hems and haws, hints around that he will, maybe, loan you the money. You know he has $1,000 dollars in his pocket. Finally, after thinking about it, right before he gives it to you, he changes his mind. You are frustrated. You are *** NOTICE: THIS WORD IS AGAINST THE RULES. FAILURE TO REMOVE IT WILL RESULT IN A STRIKE. *** off. But, if you go ahead and take the money, you are a thief, nothing more.

May I add another bit of meat to this stew?

As I recall there was a case in Texas (I think that's where it was) in which a man entered a woman's house and proceeded to rape her. But just before doing so, realizing it was going to happen anyway, she begged him to use a condom.

His defense attorney in court said that because she asked for him to use a condom, therefore it made the rape consensual.

She said she asked him to use a condom because:

a. she realized he would rape her anyway

b. she was afraid of STD's

c. she didn't want to get pregnant

What say you to this defense argument?

Basheva,

Well, surely it is a pitiful excuse for a defense argument. I'd like to see more specific facts - was it a jury trial? If so, that is unfortunately one possible outcome in our legal system (remember OJ was aquitted). If, on the other hand, it was a judge deciding, my guess is it was a right wing judge, not because he/she would be more likely to coddle criminals, but because a right wing judge would be more likely to uphold a patriarchal status quo, and indeed be more likely to view rape as a form of sex, rather than violence.

Well, actually Quarkhead - I don't know what the decision was.....I don't believe I gave information in my post that indicated that I had included what the decision was.

So, the supposition that it was a right wing judge, can't be based on any information about the decision - because I didn't include that information (not knowing it).

The aruguments that I listed were the defense attorney's not the judge's decision.

And, additionally, I don't remember if it was a jury trial or not.


Why I put that post up there was for your opinion.

I understand. I wasn't trying to jump to any conclusions, just offering some off-the-cuff opinions. My thinking is that the defense line must have worked in order for it to make national news. Why else would anyone have heard of it? I know you weren't claiming any conclusions about the case.

I feel a defense line like this is grasping at straws, and has no merit as an actual argument. I moved straight on to suppositions about the case because, first, as I said, the defense argument is pitiful, but also to address and challenge the entire patriarchal idea of rape as a form of sex in which there is so much grey area. I don't believe that, as individuals, conservatives are all of this stripe. In my experience, however, and the replies to this thread reflect this experience, that a LOT of the people who DO hold this belief ARE conservatives. In fact, in my own experience, I have never met a liberal who had any question about rape and sex being in any way interrelated.

peace,
Dirk

Since a lot of the responses have said. 'No means no'. I find myself asking the question; Is it possible to rape some one even if they don't say 'No'.

What if they say nothing at all?

I have NEVER met a conservative that thinks rape a simply another form of sex!!!

That is a ghastly thing to allege! I cannot imagine why anyone would say that unless one is simply trying to cast conservatives in a bad light.

Rape is nothing BUT violence!

However, it is a fine line to determine when rape occurred at times. If there is damage to the one raped, we can naturally assume rape. But who do we rely on when it is a “this one said, that one said” situation?

What if a woman decides, for instance, that AFTER she consented she would rather not have consented? Can she all of a sudden claim rape?

Do we ALWAYS take the woman’s word for it regardless?

Is the male ALWAYS guilty regardless?

What ever happened to being innocent UNTIL being proven guilty?

Just curious on the opinions.

Hmm. Maybe you've missed this part of my posting:



Notice how I used phrases like, "I believe that..." "In my experience..."

One could say this: Not all conservatives support Bush, but a LOT of people who DO support him ARE conservatives. See, doesn't attack all conservatives. Not all conservatives are pro-life, either, but of people who are pro-life, a LOT of them ARE conservatives.

Make of it what you will, brother.

Thought I might add something here, regarding your question. My husband was a juror at a courts martial board several years ago regarding an alleged rape incident. The court found the soldier guilty even though the woman said YES!
Apparently, in military law, if a woman is intoxicated (above the legal limit) she cannot give consent to the sex act, because it might have affected her decision. This woman (also enlisted, the same rank as the "perpetrator") decided weeks later that she had been coerced.
There were many other extenuating conditions which I won't delve into here. Suffice it to say, that man was absolutely innocent by any reasonable person's definition. He was a good soldier, loved the military, and had an outstanding record with numerous testimonies on behalf of his character. He had an impeccable work history.

The Colonel, who the highest ranking person on the board, announced that he didn't want the base paper to reveal that they let a "rapist" (by the letter of military law) go free. Military law only requires a majority vote, so my husband was outnumbered. He talked most of the jurors down to 2 years in prison instead of 6, which was no small feat as he was the lowest ranking officer there. That poor guy received 2 years in prison. Worse, when he got out he was classified as a convicted felon with a dishonorable discharge. I still think of that guy today.

HEY! What do ya mean 'strange'? Heehee. Just kidding (sort of)

The only sense in which a woman can be said to be "asking" to get raped is if she doesn't learn to protect herself. That may mean martial arts (something easy to learn and nasty, like Krav Maga, an Israeli military system) or a firearm, or perhaps a non-lethal weapon, along with effective training in their use. But if she doesn't that in no way lessens culpability on the part of a rapist, no more than it would for a mugger, a burglar or a murderer. Self-reliance and a non-victim mentality is the key for any human being, male or female. That means making any would-be attacker sorry he/she ever decided to mess with you. There have always been predators in the world, and that's always been the only way to deal with them.

I don't know about you, but I think it is unreasonable to have sex with a woman who is drunk. He may be a great officer, but that doesn't excuse his horrid judgement.

Better never take a woman out to dinner and let her have wine. Two glasses, and she's past the legal limit.

It's hard to operate this debate without knowing how she was behaving. If she was visibly quite drunk then the guy deserves whatever jail time he deserves. If not, then the line blurs.

Okay, you're absolutely right. I just didn't want to delve too far into it because this trial, per se, isn't the matter up for debate.
What essentially happened is this...A young, enlisted woman became intoxicated at a party, and invited another young, enlisted man to her dorm room. The party was located in the dorm building, where they both resided.
The young airman was present (at the party) primarily because his airconditioning wasn't working in his room, and the temperature was uncomfortable for sleep. She essentially invited him, it was later revealed, to incite jealousy from another man with whom she held interest.
There was a lot of obvious immaturity on everyone's part, because there were several 'witnesses' who didn't actually testify to seeing the event, but admitted that they put their ears to the door listening for the appropriate noises. They heard no resistance.
In addition, the young man didn't actually go through with the act, because he admitted that she didn't seem very "into it". Unfortunately for him, he reached a very small level of penetration (the head) which was enough to convict him under the law. In addition, he was interrogated fiercely before he was granted a lawyer, or read his Miranda rights. His testimony during the interrogation was admissible in court. Apparently this is acceptable under military law.

Re: the military case

IMO consent given "under the influence" is still consent. I'll agree that having sex with an intoxicated person is not good judgement, but poor judgement shouldn't be a felony. Apparently the military regs don't see it that way.

So if the guilty man had been drunk could he have claimed rape? Or is there a double standard?

I'm sure that the 'guilty' man did have a drink or two. Obviously, a VERY intoxicated man could be unable to perform, however.
I'll tell you....This case really surprised me. I was always (and still am) of the mindset that a woman is never 'asking for it' no matter the situation. However, unless she was passed out, literally, I don't see how there could be a case if she gave her consent. I don't know if civilian law corresponds to this.

Believe me when I was in my drinking days I was able to "perform" when highly intoxicated.

Well, I supposed you were raped then!

I am traumatized.