Comments on Mea Gulpa!

and...hey...ladies..will you stop crying rape when it really did not happen

god, I am glad I am queer, all those arcane codes are just too much

and thank god for DNA tests...

The problem is we don't know whether she consented or not. Take two people, drunk off their asses, maybe high from other substances, and for all we know in that state they were both up for it. If she's not couldn't tell if her drink was spiked or not, how can she honestly say she didn't really consent? Drunk people do things all the time that they can't believe they've done in the sober morning.

Now you could argue that drunk people simply can't consent, but if drunken sex = rape, we've got to find new hobbies for lots of people. Perhaps the best solution is to not go out drinking alone, so you have friends (some of them hopefully less drunk) can drag you home when you're too drunk to make good decisions.

"Um, why are patients being treated with suspicion when they are raped? ... I was under the impression that patients (nay, victims of rape) should have nothing to try to excuse."

Because in he-said-she-said cases, it's often not clear that a rape took place at all. Treat the accuser with respect, yes, but skepticism is warranted when a person's freedom and reputation are at stake. The presumption of innocence used to be reflexive stance of liberals; I hope one day that it is again.

Think about this: if 75% of those who claimed their drink were spiked lied about that, isn't is plausible that many of those lied about whether it is rape as well?

Ah. The finest specimen of queer—The Lady Hater, Secret or Otherwise. Why will no one address this problem? Look I don't like vagina, either, but in my case, being queer has made me more sympathetic to women, not suspicious of them.

Let's disspell another myth—that there's a large contingent of women running around who cry rape everytime sex has become inconvenient or icky for them. Fuck, if a woman is sufficiently creeped out by the sexual experience, then she must have a pretty good personal reason. If she wants to cry rape, better safe than sorry; the dude will be exhonerated if the claim is bunk. If guys are so fucking scared of being called a rapist in a he said/she said case, perhaps they should proceed with a modicum of respect, responsibility and foresight and be mindful of their sexual partners. Sex isn't a goddamn free-for-all where a simple, slurred "Yes" is an automatic pass for the careless commission of an act whose stakes are reputation, psychic and physical health, life and potential life, and potential death. Here's a good one: if girls can get drunk "as long as they bear the consequences," how about we say the same for all guys who stick their dicks in other people's bodies?

Good advice for anyone, no matter your sex/gender, choose your activities (drinking, sex, whatever) and your activity partners wisely.

"If she wants to cry rape, better safe than sorry; the dude will be exonerated if the claim is bunk."

This is possibly the most disturbed and uninformed thinking I've encountered at The Stranger. (Duke lacrosse, anyone?) I'm grateful you aren't running things.

"Look I don't like vagina, either, but in my case, being queer has made me more empathetic to women ..."

Actually it looks like it's made you unable to empathize with someone who might be wrongly accused of rape. That's not something you should be proud of.

Nick -

We're not claiming that these women are lying when they say they were raped. I suspect most of them honestly *do* believe they were raped because they simply don't remember consenting. But that doesn't mean they didn't consent when they were drunk/high out of their skull.

Nick - If she wants to cry rape, better safe than sorry; the dude will be exhonerated if the claim is bunk.

I love your unquestioning belief in the justice system. Of course there are a dozens of men recently released from prison for crimes (including rape) they didn't commit (now proven by DNA tests) who would question this assertion.

I just don't get why certain people need to constantly trot out the "false-rape-claim" argument everytime rape is discussed.

Seriously, what do you hope to gain in the discussion?

I see you, John. What is important (for me, at least) is that, in the case of a woman who doesn't remember consenting, there is a significant lack of appropriate language and course action to rectify the situation (perhaps due to the suspicion which the doctor in the article openly admits???). While being wrongly accused of rape is pretty horrible, it must be worlds more comfortable than to believe you have been raped.

What is clear, though—and the point of posting the article—is that rape (real or imagined) cannot be the fault of the person raped (or believing him/herself to be raped). I am interested also in the tenor of the article, which casts a back-alley shadow on the victims simply because they felt or claimed they had been drugged. It is reasonable to assume that such a claim could be made in order to evade suspicion from doctors/police that might possibly ensue were the rape victim to disclose that he/she had been fully intoxicated.

But about false rape accusations, it should be stated that the article linked in the post does make clear, in its very first paragraph the state of the persons claiming date rape drug:

Women who claim to be victims of 'date-rape' drugs such as Rohypnol have in fact been rendered helpless by binge-drinking, says a study by doctors.

This article is about persons who either have actually been raped or who believe themselves to have been raped.

"I just don't get why certain people need to constantly trot out the 'false-rape-claim' argument everytime rape is discussed. Seriously, what do you hope to gain in the discussion?"

We hope to draw attention to the fact that accusers should not be taken at their word, anymore than than the accused should. It's a basic principle that the original poster obviously hasn't grasped, and of central relevance to any discussion involved drinking, drugs and rape.

@PI - Since when are rape victims taken at their word? What planet do you live on where accused rapists are denied due process? Where rape victims are treated like heroes?

Your fear of being falsely accused of rape (or your sympathy towards someone who may have been) has skewed your vision of how the system works and the reality of rape.

Drunken sex has consquences. I think the problem is that a lot of men think those consequences only happen to women.

" ...have in fact been rendered helpless by binge-drinking"

The use of passive voice here is curious. Makes it almost sound like it was something done to them -- as would be the case if their drinks had been spiked. But getting fall-down drunk is something you do to yourself.

"Since when are rape victims taken at their word? What planet do you live on where accused rapists are denied due process?"

They aren't "rape victims"; they are "accusers." And honestly, do you even read the news? Two word: Duke lacrosse.

I'm just glad Erica didn't post this so we don't have to accuse her of having an agenda.

I took it to mean they were rendered helpless in that they couldn't make a rational decision, not that they were physically helpless and that some guy is carrying them out to his car and raping them while they're knocked out cold.

I think there are plenty of cases where two people are drunk/high out of their minds, they end up having sex with consent on both sides. And the next morning the woman wakes up thinking "I only had two or three drinks and I didn't consent to sex, he must have slipped me something " when in fact she had 6-8 drinks and did consent. Now, what does the consent of a drunk/high person really count for?

But is it really fair to hold the man accountable for rape in this case (keeping in mind he was also drunk/high)? It seems to me that we're holding him to a higher standard.

Just an aside. Doctors have a good reason to want to determine the substances in a patient's system. Date-rape drugs may interact with treatment drugs in certain ways so those treatments aren't available. Also, other treatments may be incompatible with cocaine, high alcohol content etc.

Actually in many states, anyone—man or woman—under the influence of alcohol, whether unconscious or not, is legally incapable of consent.

Good point, Hattio. It just feels like the article undermined the importance of that fact.

They'd also be incapable of the mens rea to commit rape, no? This statistic is scary because how many of the women who claimed to have been raped simply exercised bad judgment and regretted having had sex the night before? But guys who have sex with stumbling-drunk women are asking for trouble.

Nick -

So if two drunk people have sex then neither can technically consent and both should be charged with rape?

Here's the law, you sick fucks:

RCW Chapter 9A.44

"2nd Degree Rape: When first degree circumstances are not met. Forcible compulsion, or when the victim is incapable of consent by reasons of being physically helpless or mentally incapacitated. Felony."

"*Mental Incapacity: A condition that exists at the time of the offense which prevents a person from understanding the nature or consequences of the act of sexual intercourse whether that condition is produced by illness, defect, the influence of a substance or from some other cause."

1. I don't understand why this is so difficult understand. If I am mentally incapacitated, then I am unable to give consent. The end.

2. In re: to John's question: "But is it really fair to hold the man accountable for rape in this case (keeping in mind he was also drunk/high)?"

I'm not quite certain why - in the instance of rape - the rapist should be held any less accountable. People who commit murder, theft, drunk driving, jaywalking are still held accountable if they are drunk/high. Why is rape different?

3. In re: to Presumed Innocent's statement: "The use of passive voice here is curious. Makes it almost sound like it [binge-drinking] was something done to them -- as would be the case if their drinks had been spiked. But getting fall-down drunk is something you do to yourself."

I take responsibility for being drunk. I do not take responsibility if someone rapes me while drunk. None at all. Rapists rape people. If I'm drunk or dressing sexily or chewing gum or picking my nose, that doesn't mean that a rapist has any right to rape me. None. I can lay in a ditch, drunk out of my mind, and in no way am I in any way responsible if a RAPIST rapes ME.

Trevelynne -

If two drunk people have sex why is the man the rapist? This seems to be based on some 1950s idea that men always initiate sex, for all we know they were making out and she climbed on top of him. If you're going to be fair BOTH of them should be charged with rape. Anything else is frankly sexist.

A lot of the problem is that rape is treated so differently from other crimes. Men are the accused, and women the accusers, in pretty much every case. Being accused of rape is nearly as damaging to a man's reputation and well-being as being convicted of rape. There's huge debate about what the crime actually consists of. Taking these as true, can we lay off retarded statements like "dudes, please stop raping women!"?

The rule is innocent until proven guilty. Not just for obvious crimes, or crimes where women are 99.9% of the victims, but all crime. So if a plaintiff is found to be lying about drug intake, or that she's not aware of all the circumstances surrounding the alleged crime, we've got a problem. No, it doesn't mean she wasn't raped, but trying to find out the facts is not the same as "blaming the victim." And yes, you idiots, it is an alleged crime until a judge or jury decides it's not.

If I claim that Nicholas Scholl tried to kill me, I am not the victim of attempted murder and Nicholas is not an attempted murderer because, goddammit, we don't know what happened. And if I say, "No, officer, I definitely wasn't on acid when Nicholas tried to club me to death with a cricket bat," and then it turns out that I was indeed trippin' balls, it throws my testimony into doubt and it fucking well should. Maybe I even THOUGHT I was sober when Nicholas snuck into my bedroom, dressed like Peter Pan, whispering "dude, please stop raping women!" But that doesn't mean it happened and it doesn't mean it didn't.

Nicholas, I'll tell my fellow menfolk at the next big meeting to lay off the rape thing. They'll be disappointed cause, you know, rape is great fun and all, but I'll let them know that you disapprove. Not sure what I'm going to do with my Friday nights, though. Maybe I'll start a book group.

Have to run to lunch, but when I return, let's talk more about mens rea, actus reus, culpability, &c.

I am extremely disturbed by the comments here. I had a friend who was raped, she thought there may have been something put in her drink because she only had 2. (It could have been a hormonal change or lack of food that caused her more intoxication than normal as well).

The man was a cousin to a man she had been dating. Later, she wondered if the whole thing were planned.

She filed a report, but didn't press charges because if she had, her mental health history and her sexual behavior history would have been allowed as evidence in a courtroom. The pictures of her bruises would not have mattered, because all he had to say was, 'she likes it rough'.

Fuck all of you idiot men who don't get that this is a real problem that happens to real women really often. You make me sick to my stomach.

Nick-

In my comment, I did not state that the man was always the rapist. In fact, I did not gender the rapist or the victim in the examples I gave.

The question "But is it really fair to hold the man accountable for rape in this case (keeping in mind he was also drunk/high)?" does NOT equal the question "If two drunk people have sex why is the man the rapist?"

The first question you asked, the one to which I responded, implies that if a person is drunk/high they are not responsible for raping someone. I find that to be an unacceptable line of thinking.

Tiz, I read through the comments again to see who these people are that claim rape isn't a real problem, or that it's really rare. And I came up with nothing. Most of the debate is about the legal ramifications of the crime, and your friend didn't avail herself of the law. What exactly do you want to change? Make testimony of alleged rape victims the only admissable evidence? Make the rule "guilty until proven innocent" for rape and no other crime?

Fuck you for generalizing about half the population. Fuck you for assuming anybody here thinks rape is great. And fuck you for not understanding how to punctuate parenthetical phrases. Bad grammar makes me sick to my stomach. So does shellfish, actually.

if 75% of those who claimed their drink were spiked lied about that, isn't is plausible that many of those lied about whether it is rape a

The article seems to make it pretty clear that those women were mistaken, not lying. So, in short, fuck you, Presumed Innocent. It's interesting how one little word can make it perfectly clear who you're sympathizing with.

Trevelynne -

You completely misread my comment then. My point wasn't that a drunk person can't be a rapist, but that if two drunk people have sex and we decide drunk people can't given consent, they're both guilty of rape.

What I keep hearing is "He had sex with her, she was drunk and therefore couldn't given her consent and so it's rape."

I'm fine with that as long as we're just as willing to say "And he was drunk, she had sex with him, therefore she raped him".

I keep hearing people talk as if the woman's consent is the only issue and that the definition of rape only works one way.

For the record - if you are gay and a GOOD bottom - you have a great link to strong muscle, moist sensitive Vagina.

Sorry to spoil all the fun for the ladies.

From a gay perspective, in the bars and in the cruise spots, and in the spas and sauna and bath houses ---- it is always very clear when sex is OK and mutual.
The simplest from of no is taken at face value.

Wagging the head, moving the hand, no thanks, another time, not now, you are not my type, thanks but no thanks, and variation upon variation --- all stop the progression.

The arcane world of the straight folks is a total mystery to me, not the vagina, which in fact holds great non sexual wonder to most gay men.

Like tits, so very interesting, but not because they turn us on.

Rape is never ever OK, is more often a crime of violence that sexual expression and JUST FOR THE RECORD does happen to men. And in that situation is totally ignored and relegated to the lowest priority.

And, male rape is from women, not crazed homos.

"If I'm drunk or dressing sexily ... that doesn't mean that a rapist has any right to rape me. None."

Of course not. No one here is arguing that. Please work on your critical reading skills.

"Fuck all of you idiot men who don't get that this is a real problem that happens to real women really often."

Hmmm. No commenters here have dismissed the seriousness of actual rape. I can't say the same for those showing a callous disregard for the problem of false accusations and of the inherent difficulty of assigning blame fairly when two drunk people are involved.

"I took it to mean they were rendered helpless in that they couldn't make a rational decision, not that they were physically helpless"

I drew attention to the use of passive voice ("were rendered helpless") to underscore the use of language in subtly framing the debate here, much like saying "victim" and "rapist," rather than "accuser" and "accused." The binge drinkers weren't "rendered" anything. They took an action (binge drinking) with predictable results (extreme drunkness, inability to remember exactly what happened).

"The article seems to make it pretty clear that those women were mistaken, not lying."

Good point. I thought about that after posting. Still, only the accuser knows whether she is lying or sincerely believes the falsehood. In either scenario, no rape occurred. And I don't think cases of women who sincerely, though mistakenly, believe they were raped present the strongest case for the original poster's call to "stop raping women."

"And, male rape is from women, not crazed homos."

Actually most rape of males is prison rape, man on man. It's a serious problem that gets far less ink the man-on-woman rape, but that's a topic people are even less inclined to explore rationally for some reason.

Whoops, my comment at #27 was obviously directed to John, not Nick. Sorry for that.

PI -

Haha. My critical reading skills are just fine.

You made a comment:

"The use of passive voice here is curious. Makes it almost sound like it [binge-drinking] was something done to them -- as would be the case if their drinks had been spiked. But getting fall-down drunk is something you do to yourself."

I responded to your comment:
"I take responsibility for being drunk."

I then expanded on own my comment/initiate my own argument in the discussion:
"I do not take responsibility if someone rapes me while drunk. None at all. Rapists rape people. If I'm drunk or dressing sexily or chewing gum or picking my nose, that doesn't mean that a rapist has any right to rape me. None. I can lay in a ditch, drunk out of my mind, and in no way am I in any way responsible if a RAPIST rapes ME."

You see, and let's think critically about this here, I'm furthering my own argument. Believe me, my thinking about the topic does not only exist as a reaction to your thinking about the topic. I am capable of independent thought. I keep looking and looking to see where I accused you or anyone else in the comments of saying that you/they thought it was okay to rape drunk people, and I just can't find it. If you feel that this is what I was implying, then I apologize, because that was not my intent. I am, however, speaking generally about how rape and drunkenness are often talked about in our culture, which I believe is very relevant in a discussion about binge drinking and rape.

John-

Here's a hint about language: Don't accuse someone of "misreading" your comments when you don't have direct access to their brain. I can "misunderstand" the intent behind or the words of the comment, but I am at a loss as to how you would know that I have misread a comment without a) direct access to my brain or b) I have admitted to misreading your comment. You believe that your words mean x, and I believe your words mean y. Your intent and how your words are perceived can be two completely different things. Misunderstanding? Possibly. Misreading. No. I understand the statement just fine, thanks.

I wonder how soon these tests were done. If I remember correctly, GHB leaves your system after 11 hours. So if the girl wakes up the next morning and gets tested for the drug, it could already be out of her system.

I don't know what was slipped into my drink the night I was raped. All I know is I had ONE drink and 30 minutes after I started drinking it, I became incredibly loopy as if I'd been tossing back shots all night. The two friends who were with me and had only a SIP of my drink that night, both complained of headaches the next morning. No, I never got tested. I was more concerned about trying to find a place to sell me the morning-after-pill (and back then, it wasn't easy to find!). Waking up bloodied and bruised and not knowing if he used a condom with me gave me more concern than finding out exactly what he used to make me so intoxicated.

It's stories like these that will only make the real victims even more fearful of coming forward. If they feel they're going to be treated with suspicion, then it's not going to be worth it to them. Believe me, you already feel like shit for what happened *if you can remember*, you don't need somebody looking down on you thinking you're just a silly drunk girl who couldn't control yourself.

Rape sucks. Rapists suck. The girls who lie about it suck. But people judging those girls without knowing what they've been through also suck.

Trevelynne -

Nice job of focusing on meaningless semantics points and ignoring the key issue (that others have brought up again and again and you've ignored). You've got a wonderful career in politics ahead of you!

the problem of false accusations is less a problem then actual rape. that is my opinion. just like i think more females are raped than males. all of these issues, however, are problems. furthermore, the existence of one problem does not negate the existence of another.

one point of clarification: there needs to be more clarification here. the converstation is just all over the place. for instance, if the guy and the girl are drunk, it IS rape if the woman says no but the man still does it. it is NOT rape if neigher says no, both consent, but then one cannot remember consenting the next day.

also, some of the opinions here are so hostile. it is sad, really. some posters here need to be WAY more sensitive to the problem of actual rape. i know we are paying for the mistakes of history, but we really should know better by now...

the problem of false accusations is less a problem then actual rape. that is my opinion. just like i think more females are raped than males. all of these issues, however, are problems. furthermore, the existence of one problem does not negate the existence of another.

one point of clarification: there needs to be more clarification here. the converstation is just all over the place. for instance, if the guy and the girl are drunk, it IS rape if the woman says no but the man still does it. it is NOT rape if neigher says no, both consent, but then one cannot remember consenting the next day.

Why don't we open the floor to men who have had their names dragged through the mud (preferably in court since it seems to be the legal standard that we're so worried about) because of a false rape accusation.

It seems like threads about rape are always full of women who have been raped telling their stories, but, strangely, no men who have been falsely accused. Leads one to believe that it's just not that big of an issue. But, hell, prove me wrong.

FWIW, there is obviously a big problem with wrongful convictions based on mistaken eye witness accounts. These false convictions do not, however, mean that a rape did not take place, only that the wrong person was accused. This is usually the result of eye witness testimony, which is often poor evidence. This eye witness testimony is, thankfully, starting to become paired with DNA evidence (like the Duke case) which will hopefully nip the problem of false convictions in the bud. HOWEVER, just because rape victims might be mistaken about the identity of their rapist, usually in stranger rape situations, they are very rarely mistaken about the actual occurence of a rape.

I find it disturbing that this discussion has become so focused on women who "cry rape" when no rape acually occurred. Of the nine women I know who have been raped, only one has reported her rape to the police. Of the number of people I know who have had things stolen from them, been mugged, or have been assaulted, we're talking a nearly 90% reporting rate. Why could this be? Perhaps because talking to the police about your rape sucks, going through with a trial really sucks, and dealing with all the people in your life and on the internet who think that you're just making it up because you regretted it the next day really, really sucks. What reason would someone, man or woman, ever have for going to the police to report a non-existent rape, especially after the way that the woman in the Duke lacrosse case was treated?

Also, "innocent until proven guilty" refers to the accused, not the crime itself. That's why it's "alleged rapist" and not "alleged victim."

kfmtpeaw unvwbi bmel filqdsbyh ulzrw iftqwsauv mfcdptjxq

kfmtpeaw unvwbi bmel filqdsbyh ulzrw iftqwsauv mfcdptjxq

kfmtpeaw unvwbi bmel filqdsbyh ulzrw iftqwsauv mfcdptjxq

kfmtpeaw unvwbi bmel filqdsbyh ulzrw iftqwsauv mfcdptjxq

Hi all!

What you thinking about it?

Vicodin side effect

G'night