Over in the Motherland a recent survey has found some disturbing statistics about the way a significant minority of UK respondents view rape.
One in three people believes that women who behave flirtatiously are at least partially responsible if they are raped, a report published today reveals. A similar number think that women are partially or wholly responsible for being raped if they are drunk, and more than a quarter believe women are responsible if they wear sexy or revealing clothing.
The Amnesty International report was described as “shocking” by the group’s UK director, Kate Allen. “The government’s policies on tackling rape are failing and failing badly,” she said. Nearly 15% of respondents thought a woman would be partly responsible for being raped if she was known to have many sexual partners, and 8% totally responsible.
Men are marginally more likely to blame the victim than women, although in the case of drunkenness 5% of women thought a woman would be totally responsible if she were raped, compared to 3% of men.
Police recorded nearly 13,000 rapes last year, a figure thought to amount to only 15% of the true total since most rapes are never reported. The conviction rate for rape is 5.6% - the lowest ever recorded, with 741 cases resulting in conviction last year.
So let’s get this straight. Around 15 percent of respondents to this phone survey thought that if a woman had had many sexual partners, she was “partially responsible” for her rape? What does “many” mean? More than one? More than five? More than ten? And a quarter believe a woman is somehow responsible because of what she wears? What century is this again?
Emma at Gendergeek responds:
… to ensure that I am not unwittingly responsible for men’s unjust incarceration for something outwith their control, I wondered if I could trouble you to provide some points of clarification.
* I am generally a conservative dresser. I do, however, have a bunch of tops that show a bit of boobage. How complicit am in any rape that should occur if I wear them with a suit? With a pair of jeans? With a skirt? [Also: does the answer change if the jeans are tight, or the skirt is short?]
…
* I see that 30 per cent of you will slap any raped woman’s wrist for being drunk. Could you let me have the precise alcohol/blood ratio that means it’s no longer a man’s responsibility to keep it in his pants if a woman says no?
I’d also like to know the exact skirt measurement that would make a woman responsible for being raped, or the precise manner of flirtatiousness… say, laughing at a joke or touching a man on the arm? If I kiss a man do I still have the right to say no to sex?
Newsflash. A woman is never responsible for being raped. Not one little bit. The responsibility for rape lies with the rapist. It doesn’t matter what a woman wears, what she drinks, if she flirts with a man or not: if a man forces her to have sex against her will, it’s RAPE. There are no extenuating circumstances. Consent is the only circumstance that matters.
There’s been an interesting series of posts at Alas, A Blog about this as well. Well worth perusing if you have the time.
And there’s one comment in one of the threads I found to be very telling, from commenter LAmom:
In my single days, people often told me that the reason why I had not yet succeeded in landing a man was because I wore clothing that was too frumpy and I didn’t know how to “send out signals” to a man. So women are supposed to know how to dress just sexily enough and act just flirtatious enough to be properly attractive, without crossing the line and inviting rape. Yeah, right.
Yeah right indeed.
Part of the problem is the large number of people who don’t realise that the phrase ‘invite rape’ is an oxymoron.
One thing these miserably depressing but unsurprising stats have got to make you wonder is this: when respondents of either sex blame the victim for being drunk, showing boobage (what a great word) or whatever, what does it say about their real opinion of men?
What their responses seem to be saying is that rape exists as an ongoing environmental threat, like being struck by lightning, and that women who are silly enough to stand under trees (as it were) are ‘asking for it’.
The unspoken assumption behind these responses is that men are such out-of-control Neanderthals that they can’t help themselves — and that it’s okay to be like that.
Uh? Leinad not unnertan’ big word. Too busy scratch fleas. Me man. Like boobs. Consider argument woman asking for it stupid though. Wooly-Ba has good wool. Not go around asking be kill and wear like loincloth.
Leinad lie down. Head hurt from write.
Gaaaahhh! Cat killer!
I bet you’re a lipsniger, too.
Kate - are you in WA ? where we’ve had 2 cases of rape thrown out by the courts in the last week, in one case it took the jury 2 minutes to reach a verdict. What do you think about the fact that they publish the man’s name, but not the woman’s ?
I can see the reason for not publishing the woman’s but do you think they should not publish anyone’s name until there’s a conviction ?
Should a man cleared of a rape charge be able to sue the accuser for damages ? Given the sort of stress the case would cause ?
Thanks for the post, Kate.
There is an obvious relationship between this sort of thinking that shows up in the survey and anti-feminism - the refusal to see that structural factors condition individual behaviour.
On the question of disclosure. I wrote in my post the other day about Joan Didion. In her book Sentimental Journeys she has a long and brilliant essay about the celebrated Central Park rapes in New York in 87 (I think - it’s a while since I read it). Aside from picking up on the issue that the woman in question was the “perfect victim” for a “gang” of Black rapists - ie Ivy League educated, moral, stockbroker, engaged, etc - and contrasting both the media attention she received and the lack of attention to rapes of Black or poor or old women and also the construction of the perpetrators - she makes it clear that rape as an event is embedded in and interpreted through social lenses - often class and race are as important as gender. She talks about the suppression order for the victim - which I would support in general - but makes the point also that the construction of the woman as “to be protected” also disempowers her - even down to how she can talk to others about her experience and thus work through it.
I’d recommend a read.
No, because it’s the Crown who makes the allegation, not the victim, and such a provision would effectively quash any chance that any woman would ever report a rape. Being acquitted should be sufficient to restore someone’s reputation in a legal sense.
Rape is a notoriously difficult crime in which to secure a conviction. As a result, not only do the vast majority of rape cases do not result in a guilty verdict, but rape is significantly underreported to the police as women are well aware not only in the difficulties of getting any case to court, but also of the poor likelihood of ever getting the rapist convicted.
In the case of the police officer who was charged, but not convicted with raping his colleague — I have no idea about the merits of that case. I would wonder why a woman would lie about rape as a matter of principal, and I doubt very much that anyone would go through the harrowing process of a rape trial without having a genuine complaint. So I guess I am suspicious of the verdict in this case, but again I can’t really judge as I don’t have the relevant information.
And Russel, I don’t really have an opinion on publishing the alleged perpetrator’s name in rape cases any more so than in any other criminal case. The only reason I think it would be of concern is if one suspected large numbers of men were being unfairly targetted as rapists, which I don’t believe is the case.
As for the victim’s name being published, I can understand why victims don’t want the social stigma attached.
Unfortunately we live in a society where being a rape victim isn’t just the same as being a victim of say, a break-in. You could say the same about the alleged rapist but frankly, I don’t think it’s equivalent at all.
Some argue that this further dehumanises the victims of rape. I’d say it should be up to each individual woman.
And thanks Kim.
Mark - the account of one case begins “A 21 year old man faces trying to rebuild his reputation and a substantial legal bill after a jury took just two minutes yesterday to acquit him of a rape charge”
Is it fair that he should pay for his defence ? Surely the Crown should pay ?
The other case has this in the report “Lawyer Gillian Braddock argued that the woman had been romantically involved with several policemen and her claim of assault had been fabricated as part of a jealousy game which got out of hand when another officer reported it to internal investigators”
I guess the cleared person could try to sue for malicious damage ?
The problem lies with the prosecution, surely, and the committal process. If it was obvious there was no prima facie case to answer, then the case should have been thrown out by the magistrate, or the DPP should not have proceeded based on the brief.
I can’t see how you could consistently suggest that people should be able to sue for being prosecuted if they are acquitted - you’d raise the bar a lot on prosecutions. As to who should pay for the defence, that’s what legal aid is for. How could you possibly assess the strength of the case against someone before it’s presented and how could you equitably decide who should have their defence retrospectively re-imbursed?
I wouldn’t like to be in this person’s shoes - but it’s vital that criminal justice policy be decided on what’s equitable for all not occasional miscarriages of justice. The public interest in prosecuting crime is paramount. To be acquitted, particularly if a judge has commented on the evidence and the strength of the case, should be reasonable to defend one’s reputation.
If the allegations were malicious, then I would imagine that the person could sue the person who made the allegations for defamation civilly.
That’s more or less what Didion argues, Kate.
Russell, no offense, but I’m not terribly concerned about the reputations of accused rapists.
Yes, if a man in unfairly accused of rape, that’s a terrible thing, and he should have the chance to have his name cleared in a court of law. Which is all the most accused criminals have. Even murderers.
I doubt false accusations of rape happen very often, however, and I really don’t think it’s much of an issue when compared to all the actual crime of rape itself, societal attitudes to rape, and whether or not women are actively discouraged from going to police and pressing charges.
What Kate said - the fact that men seem to have this fear is in itself indicative of social attitudes to sex and to women - no offence, Russell.
Any genuine victim who’s been through the court-case mill will tell you how incredibly stupid it is for women to press false rape charges. Fear of the well-documented, long-drawn-out humiliations of a rape trial — and here I mean for the victim — is the main reason why relatively few rapes get reported in the first place.
Apart from anything else, you’ve got to get your feminine responses exactly right in order to be believed. I remember getting some unsolicited advice from a (male) law-student cynic, many years ago, on what to do at the police station if I was ever raped and could summon the courage to report it. ‘Cry,’ he said. ‘But not too much.’
Kate - when you say ” I really don‚Äôt think it‚Äôs much of an issue when compared to all the actual crime of rape itself” … it’s a bit like saying rape isn’t much of an issue compared to serial killing…. we don’t need to make that sort of comparison.
You’ll remember a couple of months ago another case in WA of the dance instructor who was cleared of molesting one of his students, he said “This has been two years of a nightmare that we just can’t describe” - people lose their careers, their houses … it seems there should be some sort of compensation if a person found innocent bears these tremendous costs …
I agree, Pavlov’s Cat.
I know anecdote does not make data, but of all the women I know who have been sexually assaulted, none have pressed charges.
Well, with the exception of a girl I knew at uni who was raped in a park, and a passer-by found her afterwards and took her to the police station.
But of course stranger-rape is the exception, and most rapes are committed by acquaintances. Which makes it harder again for a woman to press charges.
Russell, shouldn’t ALL people who are charged with a crime and then have to defend themselves in court and then are found not guilty have recompense?
I just don’t see how this is particularly applicable to sexual assualt cases.
By your reasoning, I mean.
I just don’t see why you think this post, which is about what happens to rape victims, is the appropriate place to discuss this topic.
Kate - it’s just that we’ve had these 3 recent cases where you’re left wondering about the “justice” of the whole process. I see that because of the verdict the stories have all been about the effect on the man - the women have all been nameless, and had the verdicts been the other way around we probably wouldn’t have had long articles about the effect of the crime on them.
So that’s why I put it in this thread - in these cases “rape victim” seemed to be the accused. And yes, maybe everyone cleared of charges should get compensation.
Kate, as Russell pointed out, there was the case in Perth where the jury took 2 minutes to come back with a not guilty verdict. The facts of the case included that the women had taken the man back to her place with the intention of having sex, he had said he didn’t want to because he was tired and to wait until he had a sleep, she then performed unauthorised oral sex on him while he was asleep. She then claimed he raped her.
I noticed that you responded to the Police Officer case but not the 2 minute verdict case - why not?
Perhaps in that case the women may have been responsible?
A little pointer - never say never.
Razor - I don’t understand your point. I don’t have an opinion about any of the cases - partly because I don’t trust our daily paper to give me an accurate account. But if we assume that those found innocent were innocent, they have paid a very high price - their legal bills, lost wages etc, at the least, should be paid by the Crown.
I don’t get your point either Razor, I couldn’t remember hearing about that case and when I googled it I didn’t find anything. Which I why I didn’t comment.
It’s really amazing to me that when you put up a post about rape people want to talk about cases of men being unfairly charged. Stats I have seen suggest that two percent of all rape cases reported are fake. TWO PERCENT. I think that’s extremely negligible when compared to the women who are being raped.
Just in case you’re an idiot and don’t get it: I think that if a woman falsely accuses a man of rape, then it’s a bad thing, but I fail to see how it differs from any other case of anyone being falsely accused of any crime.
Finally, you give me three examples where a man appears to have walked away from being charged with rape and you expect me to change my views?
Well, I’d like to point you to figures from a study which suggests:
* 100,000 (1.5%) women experienced an incident of sexual assault in the 12 months prior to the study.
* 99% of the perpetrators of sexual violence incidents experienced in the 12 months prior to the survey were men.
* Women in the 18-24 year age bracket were more likely to be assaulted than women in other age-groups: 19% of women aged 18-24 had experienced sexual violence in the past 12 months, compared with 6.8% of women aged 35-44 and 1.2% of women aged 55 and over.
* Only 15% of women who identified an incident of sexual assault in the 12 months prior to the survey reported to police.
* An estimated 1.2 million women in Australia aged 18 and over had experienced sexual violence or its threat since the age of 15. More specifically, one in six adult women in Australia had experienced sexual assault since the age of 15 years.
* 45% of women sexually assaulted since the age of 15 had experienced more than one incident.
* Sexual assaults occurring since the age of 15 were most commonly committed by a man known to the victim, and usually occurred in a home.
* 1 in 10 women who had ever been in a relationship disclosed an incident of sexual violence by an intimate partner.
Link here:
http://www.aifs.gov.au/acssa/statistics.html#safetysurvey
Russell, my point was directed at Kate. And my point is that she shouldn’t say that the alleged victim is never at fault. This would appear to be clearly supported by the 2 minute jury verdict case (unless of course you think that the women in the case was still not at fault, which I find hard to believe - as did the Jury).
Kate may be off busy somewhere else at the moment, but it is reasonable, given the title of her post, that she gives her opinion on whether or not the the alleged victim in the two minute jury verdict trial is at fault.
I fully support that alleged rapists names should be suppressed along with victims. If found guilty, then they should be made public, including juveniles.
Wrongly accused should also be able to seek remedies in cases of malicious accusation, as can occur in sexual harassment cases.
I’m sitting in on a rape case right now. One of the difficulties from the prosecution’s side is admissability of evidence, I have just listened to a mornings argument*** on various items of evidence being admissable/inadmissable. In NSW the rule is repeated many times across the Evidence Act that evidence must be excluded ”if its probative value is outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the defendant.”
Add a truckload of case law from the NSW Court of Criminal Appeal to the High Court that qualifies/defines/elaborates/limits on that simple sentence and you may have some idea on why it is difficult to apply the law to individual cases and secure a conviction.
For example propensity evidence that the accused bought the complainants a (partly censored by myself) particular item could be used to show that the accused had a propensity to commit alleged offences of a sexual nature. It was held the nature of that (as a question of law) was too prejudicial and it was therefore excluded. I said to the defendant’s solicitor that if that item had been gifted twice, ‘coincidence evidence’ principles would have had it most likely included.
On such questions of admissability do trials turn. On the issue of release of names, I am bound by a ruling not to reveal the names of the complainants or the accused, so it appears NSW may be better on that score than WA.
Re Russell’s: ”…after a jury took just two minutes yesterday to acquit him of a rape charge. Is it fair that he should pay for his defence ? Surely the Crown should pay ?”
The length of time a jury takes is of no consequence in law. Another jury might have taken two days. A jury in Dubbo once attempted to acquit and said ”we find the accused not guilty if he returns the cows”. After the judge blew a fuse and sent them back they came out again and stated ”not guilty and he doesn’t have to return the cows” Moral, juries are unpredictable and even truculent. If the Crown had to pay for every failed prosecution there would soon be no prosecutions at all. Committal hearings do an awful lot to sort out the strength of Crown cases.
Having said all that Kate, I agree, rape is NEVER the victims fault; in an analogous way people never consent to grievous bodily harm either.
(***voir dire, trial within a trial in the absence of the jury)
Razor, do you have difficulties with reading comprehension?
If a woman lies about a man raping her, she’s not a victim of rape, is she?
*shaking my head in puzzlement*
I don’t see this as a huge social issue of the magnitude of you know, actual rape.
As far as I’m concerned, women who do lie about rape make life harder for those of us who have been raped.
Not being Russell or nothing, I don’t want to sound like I’m speaking for him, but I think his argument for the right to sue for damages if acquitted in a rape case is probably to do with the ‘he-said-she-said’ nature of rape cases - it makes a sucessful prosecution difficult but it also leaves a big question mark over any acqcuital. In this sense, an accquited rape suspect can have a stigma as damaging as that of a rape victim who’s complaint has failed.
In any case, I don’t see how being able to sue the plaintiff would be fair or helpful in this regard. It’s an unfortunate fact that accquital doesn’t eradicate the stigma of being accused of a crime, but this applies to all crimes and being able to sue the accuser simply increases the acrimony and ill feeling, while further intimidating those who have legitimate grievances. Completely clearing someone’s name and remedying damage to reputation is beyond the power of the legal system and wringing money out of the plaintiff (beyond legal costs) isn’t going to change this.
Rape cases suck.
And also, I don’t think women lie about rape often. I think it happens extraordinarily rarely for MANY reasons, but I don’t deny that it has happened.
Being sidetracked into a minor issue is frustrating and it denies the voices of all the women who have been raped, and who suffered, and who’s rapists were not bought to justice.
Kate, when I first read this I’d thought you’d finally found a topic relating to women no one could possibly wish to belittle or be creepy about. Oh well. Next time …
KAte, I don’t have problems with comprehension. You, however, have problems in being balack and white and not seeing any grey.
Consider the case where a women believes she has been raped, such as the 2 minute verdict case, and the man believes he had consensual sex. Examples of this are where, normally young women wake up the following morning deeply regretting their actions and psychologically convinces themselves they were raped.
The corolloary of your black and white view is that if rape hasn’t occurred then the alleged rapist is completley in the clear and shouldn’t have been dragged through the courts and therefore should be entitled to compensation.
Amanda, I give you exhibit a: directly above.
Razo, Vastly many more men who actually have committed rape never even stand trial than those that are wrongly accused - let alone wrongly convicted, but still you are greatly concerned about this risk whenever the topic is brought up.
Having seen personally the effect that a single sex offender can on the lives of whole families over the period of decades and the difficulty of actually securing a conviction - in this case it was eventually, I find it pretty odious the worry that sometimes there are false accusations given the way things are stacked against a prosecution. If the cases are as blatant as you state them then the accused has pretty well cleared their name.
Most of the time however the fact that rape is often one persons word against another it works solidly for the defendent, as the criteria is beyond reasonable doubt.
Peter might be able to enlighten us about whether a man falsely accused of rape can seek compensation of any kind. I don’t fully understand that angle. Is bringing a false accusation - one that ends up in court and is never discovered to be a false accusation - actionable. I think the answer is no. The man would need to make a case in court that the woman knowingly brought a false accusation and then he too would face his own evidenciary struggle. Isn’t that the case, Peter?
The drink-spike urban myth proves there is a danger for innocent men to be caught up in false allegations. Notwithstanding that doubt may benefit the accused, there is something especially damaging to a man in being accused of rape. It’s not like being accused of vandalism or even fraud. Precisely because evidenciary doubt favours the man, the more likely it is that even an aquittal may not be ‘read’ as such by the people in his circle, his workplace, his social group.
Having said that, the post is not about men being victims. Your arguments on this, Kate, are - as ever - important and worth repeating.
As Kate says, the two issues are and should be separable. As I’ve suggested, there are big problems in terms of justice for all with any move to enable acquitted defendants to sue or recover costs from the Crown. I’d suggest people reflect on those in the broader context.
Leinad made the argument well.
Other than that, I agree with the points made by Kate, Kim, Steve and Peter made.
We live in hope!
I hope commenters are mature enough to distinguish between individual opinions and their sociological context - because I want to observe that these sorts of comments about unfair accusations, changing your mind in the morning, etc., are indicative of a broader fear of women’s sexuality that surrounds these sort of discourses. They also reflect a certain uneasiness with a (slight) shift in power relations where in “he said, she said” situations a man’s word is no longer so privileged to be believed automatically.
Sexual assault is selfish, irresponsible, uncivilised, and, ultimately incredibly destructive. On the other issue, what Leinad said.
Thanks guys, but, in all fairness everything I said was just what Kate and Mark and Peter said!
“it seems there should be some sort of compensation if a person found innocent bears these tremendous costs …”
Firstly, a person may be found not guilty, but that doesn’t mean they’ve been found innocent.
Secondly, I have an overwhelming desire to shout “FUCK OFF” right now. My God - here we have a post entitled “Rape: Never The Victim‚Äôs Fault”, and we are talking evil women who lie about rape. What the fuck?
”The man would need to make a case in court that the woman knowingly brought a false accusation and then he too would face his own evidenciary struggle.”
I haven’t researched it but aside from any State statutory regimes (ie perverting the course of justice that the police could prosecute on) it would be a civil case where the standard of proof would be ”on the balance of probabilities” and that the original allegation was in turn allegedly founded in malicious intent to a false prosecution.
Even on the lower burden of proof, this would be impossible to prove without hard evidence from witnesses apart from the accused and the complainant. Such a case would be rare IMHO, the nearest legal equivilant would be a twisted copper ‘getting even’ with you such as happened to a young barrister recently accused of assault (he won 170K in damages in the following civil suit for the copper’s assault on him and false imprisonment).
”Firstly, a person may be found not guilty, but that doesn‚Äôt mean they‚Äôve been found innocent.”
Pre-bloody-cisely. It can simply mean there was not sufficient admissable evidence to convict ”beyond reasonable doubt” NOT that the complainant lied about it. Forget the compo guys, its a non starter and irrelevant to the majority of cases.
Well, amanda, these posts always have a way of creeping back to what women do and not what RAPISTS do; which saddens (but doesn’t surprise) me.
It’s a pretty good indication of what happens to a woman who says she’s been raped in general.
Boy have I walked into the swamp of fucking morons this evening. What started off as an interesting article by Kate, with enough starting points for valid discussion, has been sidetracked off by the same fuckwits whose only answer to society’s disgraceful attittude to women and victims of sexual assault, is to say “aw but gee this bloke was wrongly accused, ain’t the woman a skanky ho”.
Fucking ridiculous bollocks from the usual knuckle dragging bellends that find it impossible to separate the ego from the gender.
There’s an old Greek proverb “When you have nothing useful to do or say, go and shake the boss”. Take heed.
On a totally irrelevantbut somewhat disturbing note: i just noticed the heading of this page in my browser window reads ‘Rape: Never The Victim’s Fault at Larvatus Prodeo”
Hear hear, Kate. Very true.
My rules of engagement for misogynistic commenters:
1. If you feel like a stoush, engage. You have arguments, they have prejudice.
2. If you don’t feel like a stoush, ignore. Keep your cool, and discuss what you want to discuss.
3. Don’t be tempted to retreat to not posting on these topics on “mainstream” blogs - it’s important to get the arguments out in the broader arena, and to defend them, even when it makes you frustrated.
Castrate the bastards! On live TV. With specially designed ceramic neon dentures! I thought all you RWDBs were hot on punishing the perps, not the victims.
“Examples of this are where, normally young women wake up the following morning deeply regretting their actions and psychologically convinces themselves they were raped.”
Your use of the word “normally” here is umm…interesting Razor.
Anyway, in such a scenario you could well argue it’s the bloke’s fault for not being a better fuck and rendering her into a “condition of swoon” so she’d wake up the next morning humming a popular song of the day and glad he was there next to her, snoring cutely and leaking charming masculine odours.
I’ve been pretty damn promiscuous in my time, certainly a right bastard afterwards more than I should have been, and had my fair share of close encounters with major cockteasers but I have never ever never experienced, or heard of anyone else of either sex, at first, second or third hand, ever involved in a “I shouldn’t have done it. I call rape” situation.
It’s a lot like the “ticking bomb torture” thing. A thought experiment that’s raised as a supposition (by defenders of such actions?) but which has never been empirically documented as a meaningful issue. Yes, of course it’s happened. But you’d be more likely to struck by a meteorite. Or raped.
Gah! Total brainfart - in that last post I somehow thought that ‘never’ meant ‘always’, despite typing it out. Don’t ask me how or why…
I think there is a dimension of paternalism which still permeates from an era not so long ago say the 70’s, when for example in Australia a South Australian court changed the common law, (thereafter codified across the nation) that there was no such thing as rape in marriage.
Coupled with Durkheims anomie theory, (from a text I have on Crimonology by Roger Burke) where our new laissez-faire society is de-regulating (ie its a rehash of the 19th century one) —are we not experiencing another phase of normlessness, an ”unbridled egoism” which leads to a ”breakdown in social solidarity and conformity to the law.”?
Somewhere in there is my posited uncertain explanation for the ‘blame the victim’ behaviour. A case not that long ago, the classic criminology case of Leigh Leigh ie rape/murder in Newcastle was the most abhorrent, disgraceful example of the whole suburb and the court agreeing the girl was to blame, rather than accept the fact that one or more in a group of boys were bastards and animals in not accepting ‘no’ for an answer. For the life of me I cannot understand the mental processes that took place there, the sociological anomie theory above seems grossly insufficient.
I guess life was simpler in the days of chaperones, but that does not answer the question of why we haven’t adapted male behaviour patterns to stop what appears to be all these ‘date rapes’ , and is there a class/socio economic dimension to this or do males exhibit ‘blame the victim’ across classes? It would also be useful to know if there is any correlation between reported domestic violence against females—the greatest ‘dark figure’ (ie unknown but large) of crime— and reported rapes, I suspect there is a close linkage.
There are two topics being discussed here. Per Kate, when there is rape the woman is always the victim. Period. Judges, lawyers and anyone else who tries on variations of the ’short skirt, she asked for it’ defence ought to be pilloried.
Where there is no rape but merely the false accusation of rape, we’re talking about something else altogether. In other words, we’re not talking about an exception to Kate’s thesis - we’re talking about a wholly separate offence, understood legally or morally.
As the drink-spiking scare demonstrates, instances of false accusations of rape - in those cases, however, against an unnamed spectre (who cannot, by definition, be injured by the accusation anyway) - are possible and do occur.
As I said, this doesn’t confound Kate’s point; it is another matter altogether. Raising it in a discussion of this kind could therefore be interpreted as an attempt to run ‘masculine’ interference against an idea considered, for some reason, quintessentially feministic.
Finally, the drink-spike phenomenon is less an example of feminine mendacity on questions of rape than it is:
1) a Ray Martin-style media-promoted creation of a dubious boogeyman;
2) evidence that some women should drink more sensibly; and
3) evidence that the double standard is still sufficiently powerful to cause a small number of women to grasp at a media myth in order to expiate the guilt they feel about having made a sexual mistake.
Hear, hear, CL.
‘Quintessentially feministic’?
Heck, and there I was thinking it was about truth and justice.
Not that there’s any overlap or anything.
I’m in the middle of marking a thesis (about masculinity — don’t tell Brendan Nelson) that gives a statistic: one in six young Australian men think it is ‘okay to make a girl have sex with you’ if she has been flirting or behaving ‘provocatively’.
So maybe there’s just a lot of confusion about what rape is. ‘Make a girl have sex with you’ sounds SO much less icky.
I don’t know if we can have this discussion (the one Kate’s post is actually about) without people getting really angry, but I’ll start it and see, because it would be good if everyone understood “where people are coming from”….
Kate, you ask “what century this is”, well I think some of us are living in 3 centuries: I find I’m in the 21st, but really I’m a 20th c person, but all my grandparents, who undoubtedly influenced me, were born in the 19th.
When I grew up there were good girls and there were brazen hussies - think Doris Day vs Jayne Mansefield. Bad girls deserved what they got: rape, backyard abortions … I’m not saying this was right, just that this was how it was, those were the attitudes you absorbed.
OK, you go through life, your attitudes change, but I don’t know if they’re transformed as much as kind of layered, with some of the original stuff still there.
So to your survey …. first I wonder when people said the women could be partly responsible, just what degree of responsibility they meant - did they mean that the women were partly responsible for giving the impression that they might easily be persuaded to have sex ?
I also wonder if their rape scenario has anything to do with reality, for example, the little movie playing in my head has a skimply dressed young woman, kind of flirting in a pub, who goes off with some bloke to a private place …. This might be very far from the typical situation.
I’ll stop here - if people find this too offensive then I guess it’s not something that can be explored on this list.
But Russell the point is, even if the woman you describe does all that, if she decides to stop at a grope and the man involved doesn’t it’s rape. Pure and simple. It doesn’t matter what she’s wearing, if she’s flirting, if he bought her f√ng dinner. It’s her body and he has to respect that, NO MATTER WHAT.
Russell, the “typical situation” is rape by a family member or someone well known to the victim. Rape in public places (ie parks, streets) by an unknown criminal is incredibly rare. It’s the same story with murder - you have next to nil chance of being killed by someone you don’t know. The statistics aren’t hard to find - I’m sure that the Australian Institute of Criminology has something on its site but I’m having a busy day and I don’t have time to look right now.
The sorts of scenarios you’re talking about are indeed the popular stereotype - and the fact that that stereotype exists and feeds into people’s assumptions (as in the survey and also some of what some commenters have been writing on this thread) is one huge reason why rational thought about sexual violence is apparently so difficult.
Kate: “Russell, no offense, but I‚Äôm not terribly concerned about the reputations of accused rapists.”
Kate, no offense, but I’m not terribly concerned about the fact that many people think women are “asking for it” when they act foolishly.
See, indifference runs both ways.
And on the topic of false accusations of rape — these are a serious problem, as bad as rape itself.
Women who are proven to have falsely accused a man of rape should be subjected to exactly the same punishment as the man would have been, if convicted.
Studies indicate that anything from 9% to 50% of all rape accusations are false. That’s a lot of innocent men being victimised by lying women.
Mindy - don’t start SHOUTING because I’d like to keep talking with people who can help clarify this for me….
I’m trying to think of a comparable example - what about this: if I got home tonight and found the house had been burgled, and the police came, and they said “Well, your bin was still out the front, and the garage door was open so the crim could see that there wasn’t anybody home” they would mean that I was in some small way responsible.
The burglar broke in, I didn’t invite him in, he knew I didn’t want to be burgled … was I partly responsible for being burgled because I didn’t close the garage door ?
Oh I was wondering where you were EP! Good to see you popping up again. I’ve come to miss your plaintive cries…
Russell: no. The burgler committed the criminal act.
Someone has to present the case for gender equality on this sexist site.
Oh, really, EP? Done where?
The University of the Internets?
Advocacy research?
“Studies indicate that anything from 9% to 50% of all rape accusations are false. That‚Äôs a lot of innocent men being victimised by lying women. ”
Care to cite these studies EP?
I shouldn’t have hit the Submit button because that example isn’t about the issue as Mindy put it. The nub of the issue might be the “changed her mind” bit. If you change your mind then the other person has to respect that. But the issue re partly responsible is just right there.
Why do I have the feeling that there’s something almost not fair about that changing your mind ??
Awww EP, I really thought after the last time you meant it when you said “you weren’t gonna come back here no more”.
You are such a tease.
Russell,
You are not responsible for being burgled in that situation, although what you have done is stupid it doesn’t (or at least shouldn’t) diminish the responsibility of the thief.
if you do not want to get burnt then do go near the fire.
We are getting to the ridiculous situation where people are sso close to the fire they then believe they cannot be burnt.
The major problem is sex without responsibility. does yes mean yes does no mean yes etc.
forget about it. Perhaps don’t do it until you get married and save lot of trouble.
“Why do I have the feeling that there‚Äôs something almost not fair about that changing your mind ??”
Russell????? WTF?
So it’s fair for a man who’s twice my size to stick his dick in me without my consent?
Sorry, but that’s what you’re talking about, mate! Any person in a sexual situation has the right to walk away at any point, and the other person has the right to ACCEPT it. Otherwise it’s sexual assualt.
Partial responsibility, bollocks. I have a special level of Hell reserved for those who try and palm off their actions onto my alcoholic products, or worse, onto others’ drunkenness. Rape is rape is rape is rape.
Women who have the good taste to indulge their alcoholic desires should fear facing only the same punishments men do: nausea, dehydration, headache, joint pain, long-term liver damage, poverty, loss of the respect of friends and family, inability to work, social embarassment and vicious, vicious remorse.
None of which should stop any of you from indulging.
Steve, here’s a study at the high end of the range for false rape allegations.
Note thet the study uses conservative estimates, thus the real rate could be more than 41%.
The low end of false allegations at 9% is from an FBI study that is frequently cited by feminist advocates.
In any case, it is clear that making a false accusation of rape is a major crime that can and often does ruin the victim’s life, and should be treated as one.
Russell, sorry for shouting. The responsibility lies with the perpetrator for not taking no for an answer. Your burglary example works - the burglar would know that even though you left your bin out and garage door open you weren’t wanting to be burgled. So the responsibility lies with him for going ahead anyway. Same with rape. I am allowed to change my mind about something happening to my body when I want to as is any woman. Even at the point of almost no return. Hell even in the middle if for any reason I decide to. It’s my body. If someone won’t take no for an answer then they are committing a crime. It would be difficult to prove in court, but the fact remains that I have the right to say no, because it’s my body. It’s different for men who change their minds at the last minute (hetero in this case) because they can walk away.
Homer, unfortunately some women don’t get the choice of not doing it until they are married because some men seem to think they’ve earned the right to take something without consent. Or are you suggesting that all women should wait meekly at home for their parents to introduce them to a suitable man to be married to?
remove temptation from those weak souls.
I don’t serve alcohol when I have an alcoholic over for a meal.
I don’t leave doors open so people can walk in and steal stuff.
mindy you are being too cute.
You can’t change your mind at any time you want because of those emotions you have already stoked.
If you don’t want to have sex say no straight away or are you saying you can still say no just after you have removed your knockers!
don’t go near to the fire and you don’t get burnt!
EP - sample size, generalisability.
In other words, if you knew anything about social science (I’m aware you’re yet to do the required first year courses on the University of the Internets), you can’t infer a universally valid number from a sample from one small metropolitan area. You’d also have to look at comparative crime rates across different jurisdictions, factors causing variation over time, and hold a number of variables constant.
But we all know you believe anything you read on the net if it agrees with your prejudices, and disagree with anything that doesn’t and that’s what you call “research”.
Where Evil Pundit walks, there follows Sweden..
Kate - when I asked why do I feel there’s something not fair about changing one’s mind, I was honestly thinking out loud, not arguing that it justified rape. I’m not arguing at all - just trying to tease out through my own feelings why those survey results were as they were.
What about ‘breach of promise’ ? Doesn’t that imply that there’s some sort of contract, some shared expectations, that a person just can’t walk away from ? I think there’s something similar going on here - the old “she led him on” argument. If you lead someone on, and then change your mind, where are the other person’s feelings ?
Damn right I’m saying I can say no when I have already removed my knickers! Fortunately I have an understanding partner who is quite happy to find other ways to deal with those emotions that you speak of Homer.
Actually you have raised a good point Homer - just because those emotions have been aroused doesn’t mean that you can keep going with sex if your partner doesn’t want to. You should find some other means of relieving your ‘emotions’. Boys need to be taught this from an early age. This idea that you have to finish what you start is crap. You can finish in any number of ways. You can always DIY. Not as satisfying, but then you aren’t hurting anyone or committing a crime either.
Breach of promise was a legal concept with regard to marriage, when it was seen as primarily a contractual relationship.
People have to deal with hurt feelings all the time, Russell. It’s called maturity.
The whole question of negotiating sex in casual contexts raises somewhat different issues to deliberate rape - but the bottom line still should be that consent is an absolute.