Rape 102

[ManWithBeard]

The feminist argument that patriarchal social structure encourages rape while partially true misses the point that historically the punishment for rape has been very severe.

This is true. Sort of. Like so many sort of true things, it is nigh-meaningless without further clarification.

Rape of a properly dressed virgin known to be virtuous and behaving virtuously at the time of the offence was generally regarded as a heinous crime, and punished severely.

On the other hand, it was legally impossible for a man to rape his wife until fairly recently - the marital rapes went entirely unpunished until very recently.

Even today (not to mention the good old days) a woman who goes out wearing a miniskirt and no underwear would not have claims of rape taken very seriously - even though there is no reason why this would should deserve less protection from rape as the aforementioned virtuous virgin.

Need I mention recent statements by some Islamic clerics to the effect that a cat is not to blame if it eats the meat that was left out?

Regardless of the motivation of the patriarchal society the claim that men are indifferent to the protection of woman against sexual predication is a bit of an overstatement.

Correct. But they can be very selective when it comes to who deserves such protection.

A prostitute deserves as much protection against rape as a hijab-wearing virgin. Many men who would call for testicles of the rapist of a virgin would also say 'meh' when it comes to rape of a prostitute.

[ManWithBeard]

In New Zealand, alleged rape victims have to be examined for evidence with a rape kit.
It is invasive and quite literally is a second rape.

I take it you are using the word "literally" is an unusual sense here.

But if you have a proposal on how to prosecute rapists without collecting the requisite forensic evidence, please share it with us.

[CanadysPeak]

The feminist argument that patriarchal social structure encourages rape while partially true misses the point that historically the punishment for rape has been very severe.

This is true. Sort of. Like so many sort of true things, it is nigh-meaningless without further clarification.

Rape of a properly dressed virgin known to be virtuous and behaving virtuously at the time of the offence was generally regarded as a heinous crime, and punished severely.

On the other hand, it was legally impossible for a man to rape his wife until fairly recently - the marital rapes went entirely unpunished until very recently.

Even today (not to mention the good old days) a woman who goes out wearing a miniskirt and no underwear would not have claims of rape taken very seriously - even though there is no reason why this would should deserve less protection from rape as the aforementioned virtuous virgin.

Need I mention recent statements by some Islamic clerics to the effect that a cat is not to blame if it eats the meat that was left out?

Regardless of the motivation of the patriarchal society the claim that men are indifferent to the protection of woman against sexual predication is a bit of an overstatement.

Correct. But they can be very selective when it comes to who deserves such protection.

A prostitute deserves as much protection against rape as a hijab-wearing virgin. Many men who would call for testicles of the rapist of a virgin would also say 'meh' when it comes to rape of a prostitute.

You are correct about the history, but that has to change. We need not only to punish the rapist of a prostitute the same as we do the rapist of a "pure" girl, but we need to quit seeing the "prostituteness" of a victim. A womn is a woman, be she a seamtress or an ice-road trucker. The $%%$# Egyptians may do virginity tests, but I think that barbaric.

[Sisyphus]

Here's a few related articles and a video I found.



Rape more common than smoking in the US

Frat Survey Asks: ‘If You Could Rape Someone, Who Would it Be?’

Why “Yes, But” Is the Wrong Response to Misogyny

[wolfhnd]

On the other hand, it was legally impossible for a man to rape his wife until fairly recently - the marital rapes went entirely unpunished until very recently.

There is good reason for that, it is almost impossible to prove.

While it may be fashionable to focus on the feminist side of this issue the difficulties surrounding proving rape make prosecuting rape a legal nightmare. While the statistics vary widely from 2 to 60 percent depending on what study you look at a significant number of reported rapes are false allegations. It is a tradition of democratic societies to err on the side of the accused so that many criminals go free to prevent the false conviction of the few Innocent. A principal that in my mind represents a higher level of civilization than what is represented by the rabid polemics of trendy social movements. These are issues larger than the serious prevalence of rape

[wolfhnd]

There was an article in the news section that shows that rape is being taken seriously by the justice department.

viewtopic.php?f=130&t=20909

There are things that need to be address on the legal side I wanted to make that clear at the same time that I suggest that changes to the legal system are not likely to be terribly effective at prevention.

[wolfhnd]

Clarification

First the obvious: Social movements that increase the social conscience concerning the serious nature of sexual abuse issues is a good thing. No one here has advocated martial rape or rape of any kind be ignored or condoned.

Second concerning the representation of my statements: In earlier post I was quietly trying to raise a cautionary atmosphere concerning the relationship between patriarchy and prosecution of rapist but I see I must be more explicit.

The issue: Proving rape is unfortunately more difficult than proving other crimes because it involves the mental state of the victim. Historically to some degree this accounts for the perceive indifference of the legal system toward the victim as much as patriarchy. Asking the legal system to take victims more serious involves not just greater sensitivity to victims but also fundamental legal issues. Granting greater weight to the testimony of the accuser than the accused violates a fundamental principal of political freedom in a democracy in so as the interest of the majority or special interest group must never compromise individual rights. It is our tradition and I believe it is admirable to err on the side of the defendant.

[CanadysPeak]

Clarification

First the obvious: Social movements that increase the social conscience concerning the serious nature of sexual abuse issues is a good thing. No one here has advocated martial rape or rape of any kind be ignored or condoned.

Second concerning the representation of my statements: In earlier post I was quietly trying to raise a cautionary atmosphere concerning the relationship between patriarchy and prosecution of rapist but I see I must be more explicit.

The issue: Proving rape is unfortunately more difficult than proving other crimes because it involves the mental state of the victim. Historically to some degree this accounts for the perceive indifference of the legal system toward the victim as much as patriarchy. Asking the legal system to take victims more serious involves not just greater sensitivity to victims but also fundamental legal issues. Granting greater weight to the testimony of the accuser than the accused violates a fundamental principal of political freedom in a democracy in so as the interest of the majority or special interest group must never compromise individual rights. It is our tradition and I believe it is admirable to err on the side of the defendant.

Your second point is very much on target. About two-thirds of US states still treat marital rape as a crime somehow different from "stranger rape". This may take the form of lesser sentences, reporting barriers, or higher standards of proof. Pennsylvania (for once we're in the forefront) has a law that essentially says, "rape is rape is rape is . ." The District of Columbia has a law that specifically says marital status in no way changes the circumstances of the crime.

I apologize if my comments appeared to be directed toward you. They were not. We have had two prior brouhahas about rape, during which the victims were blamed. I wanted to be certain we were not traveling down that path again.

Your point about the "he said, she said" nature of rape applies to sex crimes in general. We are seeing the same thing here in Pennsylvania, where a well-known football coach is being charged with multiple counts of child molestation. In instances like this, I would suggest we might take the approach of examining whether the accuser has anything to gain or lose by making the charge. If, for example, a wife can reasonably expect to be further battered, see her reputation dragged through the mud, and become homeless, all because she files charges against her husband, then that adds weight to her testimony. If a wife has been seeking a generous property settlement in a divorce, and has a lover, her testimony might receive extra scrutiny. The difficulty is that, in the end, weaker (less power, less strength) members of society have someone's penis shoved in their vaginas, mouths, anuses, or all, often repeatedly, and often quite violently. That's fundamentally different from being held up at the 7-11.

[CanadysPeak]

May I suggest that all concerned take a look at the background material in the Indian law regarding rape? I'm running late this am and don't have time to provide a link. I will later.

[CanadysPeak]

In October of last year, the Indian Supremem Court, in a ruling on the 1983 law permitting uncorroborated testamony as the basis for a rape conviction, noted that rape usually occurs hidden from public view, making it difficult to procure witnesses. They further noted that few women would willingly expose themselves to the accusations and loss of reputation that often occur.

The apex court said that in rape cases the victim is undoubtedly a competent witness under Section 118 of the Evidence Act and her evidence must receive the same weight as it is attached to an injured in cases of physical violence.

"The same degree of care and caution much attach in the evaluation of her evidence as in the case of an injured complainant or witness an no more.

"If the court keeps this in mind and feels satisfied that it can act on the evidence of the prosecutrix, there is no rule of law or practise incorporated in the Evidence Act similar to illustration(b) to Section 114 which requires it to look for corroboration," the bench said.

According to the apex court, if for some reason the court is hesitant to place implicit reliance on the testimony of the prosecutrix, "it may look for evidence which may lend assurance to her testimony short of corroboration required in the case of an accomplice.

"If the totality of the circumstances appearing on the record of the case disclose that the prosecutrix does not have a strong motive to falsely involve the person charged, the court should ordinarily have no hesitation in accepting her evidence," the bench said.

The bench said courts must be alive to their responsibility and be sensitive while dealing with cases involving sexual molestations.

"The rapist degrades the very soul of the helpless female and therefore, the testimony of the prosecutrix must be appreciated in the background of the entire case and in such cases, non-examination even of other witnesses may not be a serious infirmity in the prosecution case, particularly where the witness has not seen the commission of offence," the apex court added.

The Indian SC is one of the few where the societal motives of such a ruling are explained fairly plainly.

I would wrap this up with the observation that, although both men and women can be the victims of rape, why do we never hear accusations that men are filing rape charges merely to gain financial advantage or punish an ex-partner?

[Sisyphus]

mtb I'm sorry we disagree but it is my opinion that you are doing as much damage to your "cause" by continuing to ignore that which is unavoidable organic, unalterable or impractical.

No, she is not. She's absolutely right. Your rhetoric of assuming the majority of rape victims are just making things up is extremely damaging. It contributes to a rape culture that makes excuses for misogyny and sexism, and makes it more difficult for victims to be taken seriously. It's no wonder so many rapes go unreported.

Also, all of this talk about biology is just redundant. We are biological creatures. All of our behavior is dictated by biology in one way or another. Why is it suddenly more important when discussing rape? Talking about how men are subjected to biological urges comes across as making excuses for their actions. The reason men rape is because they choose to do so.

Good intentions and sensitivity to victims will not solve the problem.

Of course it will solve the problem. That's exactly the kind of attitude that will prevent rape in the first place.

[Sisyphus]

There will be a summit in Washington, DC on October 17-19, 2012 to address the problem. The men who will attend are committed to stopping rape.

Here's a link to the website... http://www.mencanstoprape.org/Updates/hmap-save-the-date.html

I would add that even though it is not criminalized, selecting a more aggressive mate for positive reinforcement of sex when a less aggressive mate is present is as severe a crime as rape.

That's so crazy.

[Typist]

Each of us who has a theory about how violence might end faces a daunting challenge.

We bear the burden of explaining why our proposed solution will work, when thousands of years of preceding generations in every culture around the world have been unable to end violence in general, or sexual violence specifically.

Throughout history impressive numbers of sincere, intelligent, educated and experienced people have confronted this question with great enthusiasm, and they have all failed to provide anything even vaguely close to a comprehensive solution to violence.

This well documented record of chronic failure, a huge collection of evidence assembled at great cost over many bloody centuries, is now our most promising asset.

The evidence pile is now so huge, that it's becoming impossible to avoid the horrible truth. Reasonable ideas are not going to work.

If we are loyal to clear mindedness, if we have respect for evidence, we either have to face up to unreasonable ideas, or we have to face up to the fact we are willing to accept human violence.

[Sisyphus]

Here's a good article I found...

“We don’t like the sexist behavior and aren’t going to accept it silently anymore,” women in the skeptical movement say.

“They kind of have a point,” some guys in the skeptical movement say.

“Women are dividing the community by stirring up this trouble!” other guys in the movement say. “There’s all this fighting! And now we’re splintered! And we’ll never ever be able to do those important skeptical things because who’s going to listen to a bunch of skeptics who can’t even get along! You’re hurting the movement!” they add, and more words to that effect.

But they are wrong.

When women (the minority group) speak up about ill-treatment they’ve received from the dominant group (men), it stirs up all kinds of trouble, for all kinds of reasons (which I’ve addressed a few times already, like here and here). Heated discussions erupt, and true feelings are revealed, and yes, when emotions are expressed and judgments passed, a group loses a certain level of comfort that had been taken for granted. (Well, the dominant members of the group were comfortable before and now aren’t, anyway.) And because it’s women who, by speaking up, undermined this sense of comfort–the illusion that it was all OK for everyone and everybody was just fine until certain people when looking for trouble–it’s women who get blamed for the conflict that appears.

This is called “being divisive.” Calling it that is a mistake. An actual misuse of the word “divisive” kind of mistake.

Women are not, by protesting sexism and not ignoring it anymore, being divisive. Women are, by protesting sexism and not ignoring it anymore, revealing a divisiveness that was already present. Women were already separated from full participation in the community because of the effects of sexism, and nobody in the dominant group was noticing or doing anything about. Not protesting sexism and just ignoring it is divisive, because that reinforces the divisions between the dominant and the minority group. This divisiveness could go on forever if nobody speaks up. Fortunately, women speak up and begin the process of erasing the divisions.

By protesting sexism and not ignoring it, women are being inclusive. They are identifying the forces that hinder them from fully participating in the skeptical movement, and they are suggesting strategies to remove those barriers, in order to better reach all available intellectual resources and improve the community’s public reputation. They are doing everyone a favor. Arguing about it, or fighting back against women, or declaring that you will continue to behave as you’ve always behaved and they can suck it up or get out supports the division that is already in place. That is what “being divisive” really looks like.

If you are really worried about a divided community, listen to women’s explanations of how they have been kept away from the skeptical movement and then change how you behave toward them so they feel more included.

Source: http://morewomeninskepticism.wordpress.com/2012/01/26/39-misconception-protesting-sexism-is-divisive/

[Magister Miguel]

On the other hand, it was legally impossible for a man to rape his wife until fairly recently - the marital rapes went entirely unpunished until very recently.

There is good reason for that, it is almost impossible to prove.

Why would it be any more difficult to prove than rape of any other sort?

[wolfhnd]

Why would it be any more difficult to prove than rape of any other sort?

I really don't want to get into this again as it has been throughly hashed over but here you go.

In most cases rape convictions require eye witnesses or physical evidence. Witnesses are unlikely to be present in someones home and physical evidence of sexual contact between a husband and wife isn't going to prove much. In a reasonable court system the best you can hope for is charges of abuse minus the rape unless there are recordings or some other unusual circumstances.

It should it be a crime for a husband to rape his wife? That is easy to agree with but there are many things that are crimes that are almost impossible to prove. My favorite example is inside trading, if you are working inside the system or are friends of people who are and your trading how do you avoid inside information? Could you deny people having friends who are insiders if they want to trade?

Rape in marriage is just another example of how the institution is flawed. We forget that marriage as a legal institution exists primarily to protect the interest of society and does not necessarily reflect the "natural" order of things. The stress and conflict that are introduced by the artificial restrictions that social institution place on individuals is simply the price we pay for order. Like spousal violence of all types, rape is best prevented in marriages not prosecuted. People in seriously flawed relationships should be able to get help from social institutions before situations escalate to violence.

[Magister Miguel]

In most cases rape convictions require eye witnesses or physical evidence.

Right.

Witnesses are unlikely to be present in someones home and physical evidence of sexual contact between a husband and wife isn't going to prove much.

This is not a problem unique to trying to prove the rape of a wife by a husband. If sex occurred behind closed doors, and there is no evidence of violence, that makes prosecution's case more difficult, regardless of whether or not the accused and the victims are married.

On the the hand, if there evidence of, say, violent anal penetration sans lubricant with attendant tissue damage, its easy for prosecution to use that to argue that there was a lack of consent - again, it does not matter if the victim and accused are married.

And if a woman lives on her own and a man breaks into her house and rapes her, it makes no difference whether they are strangers or are separated but not divorce.

In other words, there is no need to treat marital rape as legally different form any other rape.

[Magister Miguel]

I would wrap this up with the observation that, although both men and women can be the victims of rape, why do we never hear accusations that men are filing rape charges merely to gain financial advantage or punish an ex-partner?

I can only speculate, but I would guess that this happens at least in part because in general men being raped is not seen as a significant issue, except for those "prisoners' rights" fruitcakes.

We have all heard stories about female victims of rape being badly treated by the justice system.

But if a man showed up at a police station saying his ex-boyfriend raped him, how do you think the system would treat him?

[Magister Miguel]

Your point about the "he said, she said" nature of rape applies to sex crimes in general.

It applies to crimes in general, from simple assault to murder.

[CanadysPeak]

Your point about the "he said, she said" nature of rape applies to sex crimes in general.

It applies to crimes in general, from simple assault to murder.

Not so much. Very few people ever voluntarily ask someone to shoot them in the head. Thus, a gunshot wound to the head may be considered, on it's own merits, pretty good evidence that an assault has occurred. Semen in a vagina may be evidence of a rape or just a hell of a good time at the Eiffel Tower.

[Magister Miguel]

It applies to crimes in general, from simple assault to murder.

Not so much. Very few people ever voluntarily ask someone to shoot them in the head. Thus, a gunshot wound to the head may be considered, on it's own merits, pretty good evidence that an assault has occurred. Semen in a vagina may be evidence of a rape or just a hell of a good time at the Eiffel Tower.

You are missing my point. Any crime has the potential to come down to "he said, she said".

"She shot at me first!"

"No I did not!"

This is more likely to occur with rape than with a stabbing, but this does not introduce any new problems.

It is as much of a problem if it happens with a stabbing or with a rape.