I took a pass-fail women's studies course at the UW in the 1980s and the two instructors, both of them angry misanthropes, repeated over and over how every man was a rapist and 3 out of 4 women had been raped. I asked one of their guest lecturers--another angry feminist--for the source of the statistics, and she screamed at me to get out of the lecture hall.

I imagine they were leading the parade a few years later when "recovered memories" were the rage and a lot of men (including me) were suddenly accused of having raped a daughter or sister when she was an infant.

ugh. i'm going to avoid approaching the asshats who've posted, but i do want to say a few things.

one, i think the previous thread shows a LOT of cultural confusion and conflation of sex and rape. from a linguistic perspective, that thread is terrifying to read.

two, assuming that a number of the men who posted aren't rapists trying to cover their tracks, i see a LOT of men who seem to think that rape is something they might accidentally do. no, not really. rapists rape, they do it drunk, they do it sober. they are rapists.

three, is directly to dan. i appreciate that in a lot of your writing you use simple analogy to bring about political points. i also think that those analogies don't often hold up under much scrutiny, but do still believe they are useful in elucidating certain points. one of the thing you bring up often, and others do as well, is that alcohol rarely makes people *actively *do things they don't want to. if a man wrote you and said, "some times when i get drunk, i have sex with men, but i'm not gay." you'd probably say, "wake up idiot, you are to some damn degree, GAY." i feel similarly about men who use alcohol as excuse for having sex with women incapable of consent.

i am NOT referring to drunk people actively engaged in intercourse they later regret. i think the percentage of women who have filed rape charges under these circumstances is teensy. i am referring to people sober enough to be capable of having sex (requires a little effort, you can't really just fall into someone's vagina) with someone NOT capable of saying no. (i do hope the wackos can see the difference.) i don't think this is something that most men do (and I have a very low opinion) but I do believe there exists a significant number of "repeat offenders" who being intoxicated, in the of way closet cases and wife beaters, alcohol becomes their excuse to overreact to perceived signals, she was being sexy, he was coming on to *me, she was being unreasonable. whether the act is criminal or not is secondary to the ways in which alcohol/intoxication function in our culture as personal or social psychologies.

Chuckles,
What you fail to explain is: When two drunk people, one male and one female, have sex, why is it the male who raped and the woman who was raped? If she initiates while drunk and he accepts while drunk, he still raped her? If he initiates while drunk and she accepts, he raped her? If they both initiate to the point that you couldn't tell who "wanted it,", he raped her?
If she cannot consent, how can he?

All of your discussion is about rapists, those who rape, and do it often. You haven't explained how a drunk male having sex with a drunk woman is necessarily equal to a rapist.

Interestingly, several studies with statistics on false accusation of rape do not distinguish between outright lying and the accuser's genuine mistake in believing him/herself to have been raped.

And while I would not say that false accusations do not comprise a significant number of reported sexual assault cases (and I will agree that false accusations are serious and potentially life-destroying), we do have a incredibly serious problem with actual rape, by comparison. The numbers for false accusation vary from 2% to about 41%. While the rate of 25-26% is corroborated by more sources, let's say, for the sake of argument that false accusations do comprise 41% of all reported sexual assault cases.

1000 reports of sexual assault x 41% = 410 false reports (and 590 true reports)

Now the rate for underreporting, according to the 1999 United States National Crime Victimization Survey, is 39%.

590/39% = 1512 actual cases of sexual assault and/or rape.

(It is not clear whether individual, separate incidents of sexual assault with the same perp and victim count as separate cases or as one.)

So while the number of false accusations (this doesn't delineate between those recanted, those leading to convictions, etc.) is significant, a full 75% of the total sexual assaults/rapes (unrreported, reported, true/false) are real and true.

"When two drunk people, one male and one female, have sex, why is it the male who raped and the woman who was raped?"
Well, there's a difference between drunk, regrettable sex and sex with someone who is basically passed out. In the second case, if it's straight sex, that passed out person pretty much has to be a woman, (we all know it's much easier to be too drunk to fuck than to be too drunk to get fucked) which would explain why the woman would be the victim of rape.

And to those that ask whether a male and female who are both drunk and engage in sexual acts are both guilty of rape, there cannot be one across-the-board answer to this. Definitions of rape are different in different states.

In any case, the "innocent until proven guilty" concept applies in court so that, in order for anyone to be convicted of the crime of rape, the actus reus (the guilty, i.e. sexual, act[s]) must be combined with with mens rea (the guilty mind), which must, itself, be proven (not disproved). Voluntary intoxication, for the most part, exculpates the accuser, but not the accused. And even if the accused is drunk as well, it is possible that he/she may not be convicted of one charge but convicted of lesser charges. So, yes, it is possible for a drunk woman to rape a drunk man in some states, but the conviction of this is a matter for a court where a man is the legal accuser and where the woman is legally accused.

I noticed that Dan and many of the commenters seem to assume the woman is drunk but actively engaged in the sex. What about all the woman who are passed out cold? A man can have sex with a woman who isn't even awake, or alive, for that matter. Men, on the other hand, get "whisky dick", can't get hard, etc. I doubt many men have to worry about being raped when they are unconscious. This whole "he's drunk, she's drunk, they're equal" does not qualify in my mind to the many, many, women who were not even conscious during the act. Not to mention that a woman raped under such circumstances will be far less likely to report it. Not being able to describe it makes for a pretty weak accusation. But believe me, she knows. Every day, men target drunk women, buy them drinks to get them drunker, separate them from their friends (god forbid she's out alone, then she's really asking for it) steer them back to their apartment, where-upon the woman passes out and the man has his way with her. It happens all the time. And it is rape.

And telling women not to drink too much is unrealistic, pompous, and insinuating blame. How easy it would be, if women just didn't drink too much! Gee, or wear short skirts, or flirt, or, or... Yes, it's a bad call to drink too much, and many women have learned the hard way. But always adding that little drinking lecture to a discussion about rape... it strikes me as supporting the "she deserved it" mentality.

Number 1 and 2 --
#2
Ugh, and asshat are great ways to learn together ------
#1
I am a gay man who had a similiar experience to number one. I worked with a lover and many women a few years back - among the women were a cadre of feminist, several out Lesbians included.

The most difficult conversation I had during that several years was the "all men are rapists and that includes you, even if you are queer." My love interest at the time, Rob, was really angry about that accusation.

Finally the Lesbians cut us some slack with, "well maybe you wouldn't rape us but those other women you have not bonded with are not safe."

I understand how the crime of rape became a feminist issue, my mother and grandmother have explained many times that it was not taken seriously in the past. And we all are pleased there has been much progress.

But in many ways, as in all issues, there is a rational and factual approach and the off the wall shrill rantings of someone trying to sell a book or just spouting inflamed rhetoric. In that sense, the rape topic has suffered badly.

Point of interest, I am tall and very good looking. Always considered the best looking man in the room. Men and women have fallen all over me since I was in my teens. (yes, good genes, lucky me)

All I have ever needed for all the sex I wanted is a nod of the head.

Perhaps the women's movement needs some new talking points on the topic, and new public talkers.

As several commenters have noted, one of the problems with this discussion is that some of us think we're talking about situations where the women appeared to consent, but legally couldn't due to her drunkeness; whereas others us think we're talking about situations where the woman is passed out or so drunk that she doesn't know who she is with or what is happening to her. I think we all agree that a rape has occurred if you have sex with someone who is passed out.

Can a man be raped (by a woman) when he is passed out. Of course. Anyone heard of oral? I doubt that is common, but the argument from anatomy for treating men and women here is weak.

Nick, when you pull numbers like that out of your butt, you don't do your argument any favors. It is inherently difficult to get a handle on the number of false accusations, especially if we include cases where no report is filed, but a rape is perceived or alleged.

"Every day, men target drunk women, buy them drinks to get them drunker, separate them from their friends (god forbid she's out alone, then she's really asking for it) steer them back to their apartment, where-upon the woman passes out and the man has his way with her."

Notice how this writer portrays women as weak, passive victims, to whom things simply happen ... men target them ... men buy them drinks ... men separate them ... men steer them, whereas men as portrayed as cold, calculating cads acting as fully-aware agents of their own desires. Women are weak and can't help themselves (implies the writer); men are amoral manipulators (implies the writer). It's really an anti-feminist depiction, I think, with almost Victorian overtones. Unfortunately this is a common rhetorical tactic in debates on this subject, and it's worth pointing out its deployment here.

"And telling women not to drink too much is unrealistic, pompous, and insinuating blame."

If getting drunk is dangerous, because it increases the chance of rape, or of being accused of rape, then we should be telling women and men about that danger. Ditto for using meth, driving without a seatbelt, and failing to save for retirement. That's common sense.

Um, drinking so much with strangers that you blindly follow them home and pass out is just a bad idea, male, female, gay or straight. Why the hell would you expect a group of complete strangers to take care of you.

Its a bad idea, just like waving hundred dollar bills around downtown, calling Marty Mcfly a coward, and sleeping on the train tracks. Its not blaming the victim, but yah doing stupid shit can get you robbed, covered in manure, hit by a train, and yes raped.

It would be nice if none of these were true and it would be nice if pets lived forever, it rained donuts, and jesus/santa was real. But unfortunately we live in reality, and in reality stupid descisions often result in unpleasant consequences.

And just because a man doesn't have an erection doesn't mean he can't be raped. Show some fucking creativity people.

Damn, presumed, beat me to a far number of my points. Should learn to hit post a bit faster.

Exactly. This "drunk women can't give consent" comment gets thrown out a lot, but when I ask if this also applies to women having sex with drunk men, it gets strangely quiet. Because the assumption is that men rape women and if this definition of consent leads to the realization that women are also raping men, people just don't want to go there.

I think it makes sense to say that drunk people can't give consent, but if we're going to go there we need to apply it equally to all genders.

Very interesting postings.

Didn't know I have been raped so much.

I went through a few years of very heavy drinking and big time party stuff. Woke up many times with someone sucking my dick and assorted lickings. My house, their house, hotels, vans and several times in the alley - Hawaii and Florida.

My reaction was simple, that feels good, now nice of you, smiles and grins and sloppy kisses, more, more, etc.

Are some of the people, male or female, who really fear rape to this extreme position, frigid? Asexual? Loaded with taboo that ends at rape fantasy? Or poisoned by the old fashioned Puritan stuff?

I am straight, but in a pig pile might not ask a lot of questions about whose mouth was sucking me off.

If men stopped raping women, as Nick called for originally, then there would and could be no false charges. Please, work towards that. Please.

Dan, I would have to say that I don't always agree with you on every topic, but I have always respected the right you have to your opinion. That is certainly the same in this case, but I must say that your comments in regards to this topic have made me feel ill.

"I would say this: allegations of rape are serious and, for the person accused, potentially life-destroying. People should be treated with suspicion when they claim to have been raped—always gently, and in varying degrees based on the particular circumstances—because, uh, people are innocent until proven guilty. And, yes, that includes accused rapists."

Yes, let us also speak about the serious and life-destroying nature of rape on, say, the VICTIM. Our culture tends to forget this in our rush to protect the accused.

When I walk into the police station to report virtually any another other crime, I'm not "treated with suspicion." When my house was broken into, they just took the report. They didn't suspect me or accuse me of being drunk or lying or regretting anything. They didn't seem to wring their hands on the off-chance that my report of theft would hurt the reputation of the alleged thief.

They just took the report of a crime and investigated. I have hopes that the violation of my body would be treated with just as much courtesy! *And yes, I can understand the fault in my analogy: that an alleged thief may not have their reputation damaged to the extent that an alleged rapist will. And that the impact of theft on the victim is in no way comparable to the impact on the victim of rape.

Most importantly, I'm not quite sure why the alleged rapist should be presumed innocent until proven guilty (a statement with which I agree), but the victim does not receive this same privilege.

I see from the comments that people have this idea that there are women just running around, regretting the sex they had when they were drunk and running off to the police to report a rape. To say this is to be blind to how a rape victim is treated - with suspicion, with disgust, with disbelief, with a moral attitude that she deserved it (for reason x, y, or z). To report rape in our culture is not as easy as many people make it sound.

I must add that your women studies professor (dear lord, do people truly believe that what an individual woman studies professor says is actually representative of the opinion of all women? Or the opinion of all feminists?) was an idiot. It is completely impossible for me to rape myself. Rapist rape people. I cannot currently think up anything that a victim could do to rape themselves. Please keep in mind that I am only commenting on the professor's comment NOT on the student's situation.

Tiz - I think you missed the whole point of all this, entirely.

Men per se are not rapists, only a very few.

Women rape too.

Consent can be a real thorny issue, for both sexes.

And it is terribly wrong and a grave injustice to accuse rape falsely. For whatever motive. Period.

Both men and women must work together to end all rape. Agreed, with factual dialogue and less overheated 60ies rhetoric.....and less kicking around of all men.

That should read "her" woman studies professor, not "your" woman studies professor.

Rape discussion = 100% chance of train-wreck levels of honest confusion and ideological conflation.

Actually - a serious moderated discussion would be great. Semi-anonymous comment threads, not so much. Thanks to those trying to be contructive though!

I'm as gay as the day is long, so my experience in the world of Male-Female relations is extremely limited (don't get me started on guy/guy sexual manipulation, however) but I had a woman friend who - to put it bluntly - was a mean, slutty drunk.

One night we went out for a few drinks, and "Wanda" (her alter-ego) came out, and decided that I was a desirable male, and came on to me quite aggressively. At one point, she had me up against a wall, alternatingly sticking her tongue down my throat, grabbing "my junk", and assuring me that she could "switch me".

When I disengaged myself (gently) and told her it wasn't going to happen, she started to beat on me. (At which point we were asked to leave the bar. It was gloriously trashy). After some tears (hers, not mine) I got her calmed down and took her to her place. Needless to say, I left her at her door.

Obviously, this woman has some emotional problems, and we got over it, and she never tried that again (with me). While I wouldn't call that incident a sexual assault by any means, I can see where, if the tables were turned, it might be construed as one. It was certainly violent and physically invasive.

Trevelynne, you may be unaware, but when you report a robbery, the police are treating you with suspicion. They are not just writing down what you have to say, they also will ask you questions. If they spot unusual aspects of your story they will ask questions in an attempt to clear them up. If you tell them you saw JoeBob robbing your house, they won't just arrest JoeBob on your say so, they will consider what else you said to see if it makes sense that JoeBob robbed you. They will interview JoeBob to get his side of the story etc. That is all Dan is saying should be done with rape allegations.

I found this topic here and at the other place very constructive.

Social issues are often loaded with little chance to unload, enlighten and educate. Sort of the " hot potato thing. Can't talk about that."

The only way past that, to a better understanding is to drag the topic to the table and start the conversation.

Thanks, my week will dwell on rape and how to fight it happening at all, more care and concern and compensation for victims, and assure justice to the wrongly accused as well.

Thanks to all of you.

Packing lunch for a trek to the new sculpture garden, love the view and the Calder, forgot that Settle Center has a number of excellent outdoor pieces, better than most at the new park.

The Center is not as good at self promotion as SAM.

Talk to the boys at Duke about false rape charges.

Are all men rapists? Is all penetrative heterosexual sex rape? It's wild to think that when I was in college, these were considered legitimate topics of debate within the Women's Studies department.

Quite a self-serving philosophy if you happen to be a lesbian with a chip on your shoulder.

No kidding, Nathaniel. I never said that they should go and pick up JoeBob on my say so. Please point to that in my comment. That would not be investigating a crime, would it? I said: "They just took the report of a crime and investigated." I did not say they took the report and ran out of the station and arrested someone. That's rather silly.

When I reported the crime, did the policewoman listen attentively to my complaint? Yes. Did she withhold judgment (on me, on the situation) until she had collected evidence? I hope so. From her comments/questions it seemed that way. Did she automatically consider me a liar just because I reported a crime? I hope not.

You say: "If they spot unusual aspects of your story they will ask questions in an attempt to clear them up." You are correct, sir. They listen to my story, and if they hear something unusual, they probe further. They should not begin their questions suspecting me of doing something wrong, without me having even said a word.

What I caution against is automatically considering !specifically! a victim of rape a potential liar. Everyone one is a potential liar; I'm not quite sure of the necessity in pointing out that rape victims, in particular, really, really need to be considered potential liars.

The whole "treating a rape victim with suspicion" idea makes me uneasy because suspicion means that it is thought that the rape victim did sometime wrong (you suspect someone OF doing something).

Our culture already suspects victims of rape of lying or wanting it or encouraging it or any other number of things. To encourage people to view rape victims !specifically! suspiciously, instead of objectively, walks down a scary path.

Tiv writes: "If men stopped raping women ... then there would and could be no false charges. Please, work towards that. Please."

This statement is the logical nadir of this thread (so far). False accusations are logically possible *only* when no rape occurs. As for the "please work towards that," I'm sure rapists will take head of your earnest pleadings. Get real.

Trevlynne writes: "I must say that your comments in regards to this topic have made me feel ill."

Quick, someone reach for the smelling salts!

"Yes, let us also speak about the serious and life-destroying nature of rape on, say, the VICTIM. Our culture tends to forget this in our rush to protect the accused."

The point is that it's often unclear who the victim is -- the accuser of the accused. This is not a hard concept to grasp, once you take your fingers out of your ears.

Dan and others here have made it clear that potential rape victims should be treated as sensitively and respectfully as possible, within the requirements of conducting a thorough investigation. If you were wrongly accused of making a false rape accusation, you would instantly understand the importance of gathering evidence and not rushing to judgment. This should be obvious to anyone who's given the subject a moment's thought. Please do that.

Trevelynne: "I cannot currently think up anything that a victim could do to rape themselves."

If you verbally consent to sex that you don't actually want to have, isn't that, figuratively speaking, raping yourself?

#25 Sean -

The ultimate manifesto of a lesbian with a chip on her shoulder was Andrea Dworkin in her book "Intercourse." The premise of that book, and much of her academic career, was that ALL heterosexual intercourse, no matter how tender and consensual, is a form of pornography and constitutes rape of the woman. To Dworkin, it made no difference what an individual woman thought or felt about it.

Treating them "as sensitively and respectfully as possible, within the requirements of conducting a thorough investigation" does not equal "People should be treated with suspicion when they claim to have been raped—always gently, and in varying degrees based on the particular circumstances..."

Suspiciously does not equal objectively.

I can agree with your comment because it espouses objectivity. I cannot agree with Dan's comment because it espouse suspicion.

Please, do mock more of my feelings, if it makes you feel better about your point. Experiencing rape is just a nonstop barrel of laughs!

Trevelynne: My point, and one you ignored, was that the cops were treating you with suspicion when you reported your crime. I should hope they treat someone reporting a rape with the exact same, nothing more nothing less, then they treated you when you reported a robbery. Whether you perceived that suspicion or not, I don't know, but I can assure you they were treating you with the appropriate level of suspicion.

Nathaniel. I didn't ignore your comment, I disagreed with your comment. You made a good comment, I just didn't agree with it and said so.

@3 i don't fail to explain it, i actually discuss rape and sex as separate things. because they are.

that is what comment on linguistic confusion referred to. when one says "sex" that implies a different experience than "rape" they are NOT interchangeable.

secondly, i think anyone who have consumed alcohol can tell you there are different levels of drunkenness. i do think that some rapists use repeatedly their slight intoxication as an excuse to assault the extremely drunk. because they are rapists. they aren't regular guys.

the same way that some drunk people, over eat or over drink, shop for shit they don't need/can't afford, it becomes an excuse for certain behaviors we want to do anyway and an excuse when it's over.

i'm concerned still about why men fear they might accidentally rape someone. seriously guys, it won't happen. i've never been accidentally raped, and i don't know anyone who has been. i know lots of people who have had regrettable drunk sex, and i've had more than my share of drunk regrettable sex, and it's pretty easy to distinguish. there is wide, wide gulf.

i'm also concerned about why in speaking of rape victims, people immediately trot out false-rape-accusations. that was nick's initial point. a rape victim is a person who HAS been raped. they can be referred to in blanket terms. only in the case of rape do liars get more press and talk time than actual victims. if you go into the hospital and say you were beaten up, they treat you and ask if you want to file a police report. they DO NOT say, are you sure you didn't try to beat up someone else but lost the fight? their job, in the hospital as doctors and nurses is to treat the physical injuries they see before them and to perform a rape kit. they have no right to treat *patients* with suspicion. that is a dire confusion regarding their responsibilities.

Neither in fact do the police. Now please read what i am actually saying. They do have the right and the responsibility to do a thorough investigation. To ask questions no one wants to answer, it's true of every crime reported. I saw and reported a hit and run once and can verify that I was treated like shit by everyone involved, including the police and the victim's attorney (who I had willingly contacted because I saw the drunk guy who hit his client.) But you can ask thorough questions, you can complete a detailed report WITHOUT 'treating patients with suspicion'. just like any other crime, if the police investigation determines that someone knowingly filed a false claim, they can be prosecuted. the police need to be trained to do their jobs responsibly and professionally. I think the average person has a pretty good idea of how cops treat people in even non-stressful circumstances like speeding tickets, do you really think that the same cops who can't be polite when they write you up for 10mph over the speed limit handle victims of crimes like rape with dignity or respect? that was the central point of nick's post, that these people aren't in a legal position to treat people filing reports or seeking medical care with suspicion. they can do their jobs, heal a patient and collect evidence and file reports, without treating victims like criminals.

whatever people want to make it, rape is not an idea, it's a thing that actually happens to a person. you do not "rape" yourself by consenting to sex that you don't want. for all the damage you might be doing to your psyche in that moment, for all the implications throughout your life (which is probably full of things you don't want), it is manipulation and obfuscation to play little ideological word games.

#29 Creek:

It's probably no coincidence that Andrea Dworkin was in an abusive heterosexual relationship before she embarked on her quest to deny men the sexual companionship of women and, as if that weren't enough, take away the pornography they use to facilitate masterbation.

"Everyone one is a potential liar; I'm not quite sure of the necessity in pointing out that rape victims, in particular."

A thorough investigation (which necessarily includes suspicion on the part of the investigators) is especially important in the context of a rape allegation, since there are often no eye witnesses nor physical evidence of whether consent was given. Men have been charged with rape based on nothing more than his word against hers.

Some have asked here whether potential rape victims should be treated with extra suspicion. Not necessarily, but in some cases, the unfortunate answer is yes. If you've been shot and are lying in the street, it's clear that a crime has been committed. There is physical evidence: a gunshot wound, a stray bullet. But if it's a rape accusation of the type, "yes, we had sex, but I didn't consent or fight back," then there may be no physical evidence at all to back up your claim of rape. That doesn't mean that a rape didn't or couldn't have occurred, only that it's necessarily going to be an investigation that relies more heavily on personal testimony (his word against hers) than physical evidence. And the investigators must proceed with the assumption that either party may be lying (e.g., the investigators will be suspicious).

"The whole 'treating a rape victim with suspicion' idea makes me uneasy because suspicion means that it is thought that the rape victim did sometime wrong (you suspect someone OF doing something)."

During an investigation, we don't know whether the accuser is a victim or a liar (or possibly both). Are you really unable to grasp this simple idea?

"Treating them 'as sensitively and respectfully as possible, within the requirements of conducting a thorough investigation' does not equal 'People should be treated with suspicion when they claim to have been raped—always gently, and in varying degrees based on the particular circumstances...'

Actually these statements sound equivalent to me.

Sean and Creek: I think this brand of nuttiness lies mostly outside the classroom. My three Women's Studies profs were certainly not sympathetic to Dworkin's extremism. Only a very few of the kookier students were.

"Please, do mock more of my feelings, if it makes you feel better about your point."

The point of mocking your feelings is to call you out on playing the "damsel in distress card." No one is going to defer to your position just because an open discussion makes you ill, so you say.

chuckles writes: "i'm concerned still about why men fear they might accidentally rape someone. i've never been accidentally raped, and i don't know anyone who has been. ... i've had more than my share of drunk regrettable sex, and it's pretty easy to distinguish. there is wide, wide gulf."

Clearly two people can share an experience and interpret it differently, either at the moment or later. She thought it was rape; he didn't. Perhaps her consent was only a "slightly slurred yes," which an earlier commenter here deemed insufficient to establish consent.

"But you can ask thorough questions, you can complete a detailed report WITHOUT 'treating patients with suspicion' ...."

When the police ask whether you left alone or together, or what kind of car he drove, or whether he was circumsized, they are not just gathering information to apprehend a suspect. They are checking out whether your story is consistent and makes sense. In other words, they are treating you and your account with suspicion, whether you realize it or not (as an earlier commenter already pointed out). That's what we're talking about here.

"they can do their jobs, heal a patient and collect evidence and file reports, without treating victims like criminals."

I wonder: do you make statements like this without noticing that it misses a central objection raised throughout this discussion -- namely, that police don't know yet whether they are in fact dealing with an actual victim?

I wonder: do you make statements like this without noticing that it misses a central objection raised throughout this discussion -- namely, that police don't know yet whether they are in fact dealing with an actual victim?

yes, i do. i am pointing that their job requires that they treat anyone filing a similar report as a victim. that treating the person you are interviewing as a victim of the crime they allege - whatever it may be - does not in any real way prevent a thorough investigation. i am pointing out that the ACT of investigating any crime, and the manner/demeanor/tenor in which that investigation is performed are separate, or should be if one is professional.

chuckles writes: "i am pointing out that the ACT of investigating any crime, and the manner/demeanor/tenor in which that investigation is performed are separate, or should be if one is professional."

Really, chuckles, who are you having this debate with? No one here is defending unprofessional behavior. We have stressed more than once the importance that police proceed as sensitively as possible -- without failing to investigate fully in the process. We've all heard about police and others who treat (and especially, treated, in the past) accusers with unnecessary callousness -- it's not like you're educating anyone about that here. The very thinking of many commenter here -- repeated using language such as "victims" when we're talking about someone who may or may not be a victim -- is what led to the Duke Lacrosse case, in which an accuser's story was believed without the kind of necessary suspicion we're demanding here. Anyone who wants to read the gruesome details about how three lives were ruined by a false accuser can find them here: http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com

Chuckles 37:

The first priority of the police should be to conduct an effective investigation so that the guilty are jailed and the innocent cleared. If that means being polite, great, but if it means being impolite, fine.

This reminds me of Stranger article by Inga Musico that accused the Seattle Police of sexism because they refused to release details of Mia Zapata's murder. The only other person who knew those details was the murderer, and police could use this fact to snare a suspect into implicating himself. To release them to the public would have been polite, but incredibly irresponsible.

i said professional, not "polite".

After reading all these arguments, I feel my mind has been raped. Mental rape exists, and it happens to everyone of us everyday by the endless assaults of the news and everyothers persons doings enter our minds. We cannot block out the noise. we cannot be the innocent one nomore. We are all guilty, because we are men and women who show no mercy. Endless crime dramas on T.v. and the News headlines
continuosly pump someones rape scene or violence into our heads. Non stop accusations, crime, violence, and judgement. My mind screams for it to cease but I cannot blot out the nonsense of violence. Since we were born there has not been anything pure or consensual about any info fed into our minds. It doesn't matter if you found god or not. You got some novel idea, man or women, what the hell rape is. All of it is an assault, a sense of rape on the senses. Its like a nuclear holocaust of mental abuse.
So to enter the mind of a rape victim its just like that when it has really physically happened to them. It is a horror show repeated over and over and over. And the reason idiot monsters still rape is because of the information overload fed to the masses, and even johnny law and the T.V. lawyers keep the horror show going themselves with the bombardment of rape scene playback and murder and mayhem. This seems more prevalent in America. and thats the reason for our Bizarre contradictions. We are all perverted prudes, who judge everyone guilty even if they really did consent to love. Love is a comedy to us. Not a reality. So bring on the casualties. My child like ears are eager to learn what happened. Thats consent.

No wonder why some people turn to drugs, or alchohol. to block that daily shiot and the mental rape of so called "its reality man, deal with it" types out there. You ever watch the news and get so pissed not at the perpetrators of the crime, but the ones who told you about it. Once is cool. But in a land of law and justice, we live for it to be forced, penetrated into our conciousness everyday. Sometimes I'm like watching Nancy Grace, and I'm like SHUT UP already, hey did you see how she delivered the play by play in sordid detail one after another of some one doing in there kids, or there wife, or some rape. Its like ok flip the channel. Then you got everyother station putting out the same thing..
Like A and E. Its always about murder biographies and mayhem. I thought it was called the Arts and Entertainment channel. Whats so artistic and entetaining about a real life murder, rape, violence plot. Thats what I'm saying see. We are in a sense raping our innocence and our mind. Fine if you want to be a cop or a lawyer or a hangem high cowboy, by all means go ahead dogooders. But if anyones going to be more innocent than all you it is going to be the children. Until they grow up and see the dark blight of this world, including the victims so full of hate and the perps so thrust into their faces everyday by the adults.
My favorite violent movie to out do all the violent movies. Crank.
just watched it and I thought of all this right at the end. Blammo. consent to this middle finger American T.v.
I've been raped. Raped by telivision everyday. Difference now is I hold onto love. not hate. Thats my edge.
I learned young.

Oh another thing I always get pissed when these shows go on and on and then the perpetrator gets aaway. I want to kill my television set after that, thats why I hate Law and Order. Thats why I hate Evil sometimes. And I never understood forgiveness until I hear some of y'all people who are against capitol punishment and want the likes of some killers to live. So you see why its so contadictory all these pissed of people about rape rabble rousing on and on how they deem it evil, yet noone wants a hand in the revenge process. No one has the hate. So there is still some love in America I see after all. We may not be so bad a society. We are just sick to shit with the crap though
of a wishy washy justice system that puts low grade criminals innocently behind bars for pot. And guess what. Those guys get raped. So good cop bust pot user, sends him to jail to end up getting raped, yet he busts accused rapists, gets called hero by all women, and wait , accuser gets let go cause of due process of law. WTF when is it going to get through the justice system that something is amiss. Frickin Hoover and FBI nazi task force. Yeah they started the crips and bloods fiasco to. look that up, its documented coverup. they infiltrated and betrayed the blackpanthers in Los Angeles. So you trust the Law?

for a minute, let's think of who become cops. usually people who like a position of power. maybe that's why they treat rape survivors (don't use the word victim) the way they do.

Some women need to stop acting like victims. If you were drunk at 2 am in some guy's hotel room, you don't *deserve* to be raped, but you still bear *some* responsibility for it, just like if you had wandered into the middle of the freeway and got hit by a car. Yes, the driver hit you, and he/she probably should have stopped in time, but wtf were you doing in the middle of the freeway?

Paradox #44:

Your freeway analogy is way, way off the mark, and so is your conclusion.

A better analogy would be the home owner who is robbed after leaving the house without locking the door. Could the homeowner have prevented the robbery? Yes, by lockng the door. Is the homeowner in any way responsible for the robbery? No. The thief's criminal behavior is his own responsibility, not the homeowner's or anyone else's.

Sean:
More like if the home owner goes to work and leaves the door wide open. The odds are a different issue.

Make fun of Dworkin all ya want. She was, at points, a bit of a nut. However, her work and the work of others like her marked a high point in radical feminism, a staunch radicalism and unflinching examination of society, sex, and sexuality that is largely sorely lacking today. Can all penetrative sex be considered rape? Only once you acknowledge that compulsory heterosexuality itself is one of the root causes of sexual domination, and heterosexual sex a major way of enforcing oppressive gender systems. Just like the power structures of capitalism insinuate themselves into all social interactions, so too do those of patriarchy. Fucking blow em up already.

I don't much care for Dworkin, but you must respect the audacity of her early work. Wittig and Butler will always be my sheroes.

Johnnie @ 47 -

I think claiming that heterosexual sex is rape becuase it has been used to enforce a system which oppressed women is like blaming the company who make rope for a lynching.

All I have ever needed for all the sex I wanted is a nod of the head.

And what does this have to do with rape? Not all, probably not even most, rapists are sexually frustrated. They can get laid with willing partners if they choose.

Women rape too.

Only idiots and asshats bring up this argument in this kind of discussion.

...Woke up many times with someone sucking my dick and assorted lickings...My reaction was simple, that feels good, now nice of you, smiles and grins and sloppy kisses, more, more, etc.

Are some of the people, male or female, who really fear rape to this extreme position, frigid? Asexual? Loaded with taboo that ends at rape fantasy? Or poisoned by the old fashioned Puritan stuff?

I am straight, but in a pig pile might not ask a lot of questions about whose mouth was sucking me off.

And now we get to the crux of John's argument in the Mea Gulpa thread. All rape victims just need to get over it. It's no big deal.

Although it's difficult to get them to admit it in the company of women, it's my suspicion that many men feel this way. If a rape victim wasn't pulled into a dark alley at knifepoint, then it either wasn't rape or she just needs to get over it.

Since many of the commenters on these threads demand statistics, I want some statistics on
Dan's claim that false allegations of rape are made because the accuser "regretted" consensual sex. Let's see the proof.

Two comments,
A lot of people are saying that those who report rape shouldn't be treated with greater suspicion. And a lot of those same commentators readily acknowledged that some of the rhetoric regarding what constitutes rape is overblown; ie., that actively consenting to sex when blotto drunk, or later regretting your consent doesn't make it rape. But the fact that you even have to have that discussion points out why someone reporting rape might be treated with more suspicion...what is the reporter's definition of rape. There is a minority, but way too common, belief out there that regret, or drunkeness equals rape. There really isn't that same lack of a shared definition in robbery, theft, insurance fraud etc.

Secondly, most people here agreed that being drunk and actively consenting to sex does not equal rape. And most people (I hope everybody) agree that having sex with someone who is passed out is rape. The problem is that people will often black out and not remember their own actions. They may truly believe they were raped when in actuality, they were to all appearances an active participant in consensual sex.

Oh, one last comment, I don't think many men fear "accidentally committing rape" as a previous poster kept saying. I think a lot of men fear being falsely accused though. False accusations may not happen all that frequently, but the utter destruction of someone's life when it does happen, combined with the difficulty of proving your innocence, makes people afraid.

don't say "asshat."

This debate is ludicrous.

Most of it is over absurd and linguistically challenged sniggling over word definitions.

Literally everyone involved, starting with Dan, is in basic agreement over how people reporting a rape should be treated. The sniggling exists only over the interpretation (and, more importantly, mis-interpretation) of the word "suspicion".

Remember that Dan was not randomly positing on the treatment of rape victims, but indeed responding specifically to a question of not only rape, but a very specific type of rape, are treated with a degree of suspicion regarding the specific aspect of the accusation.

Having known any number of people who drank way too much and became convinced they were drugged, and hardly any who have actually been drugged, I can say it's a healthy suspicion. In this case, it's not even necessarily a suspicion that they weren't raped, but merely that they "would say that their drinks had been spiked when perhaps they had misjudged how much alcohol they were taking."

I think that's an entirely reasonable suspicion.

As far as the professor's metaphorical take on the women who consented to sex she didn't want to have, one can reasonably disagree with the bluntness of the metaphor, but taking it literally seems deliberately obtuse.

Speaking of metaphors and such, Damien, reading these comments is not Mental Rape, unless you were part of the Ludovico treatment. Otherwise, it's merely consenting to sex you didn't really want to have. In fact, it would seem, intiating sex you didn't want to have, because you took the action of reading Slog and then clicking to read the comments.

Reading down, I had a few more things I was going to say, but hattio seems to have said them quite nicely. Thank you.

Johnnie #47;
"I don't much care for Dworkin, but you must respect the audacity of her early work."

I do respect Andrea Dworkin's talent as a writer and thinker, but she was horribly misguided. This became obvious when she joined forces with the conservatives on the Meese commission.

Utlimately, I suspect history will remember Andrea as a terribly unattractive woman who, having been spurned by men, made a career of dressing up her mistrust and hatred of men as feminist theory.

seems to me like DS read the story about the connecticut university newspaper where a recently extremely controversial article was written about rape and thought he'd fire up his own shitstorm here on slog.

rape is not just a heterosexual issue.
rape is not just a feminist issue.

and let's be clear here, rape is not just a sex issue. it is a power issue - and stems directly from how we are socialized, how women's bodies are sexually objectified and used to sell everything, and how many human beings with penises feel they have the right to put their penises wherever they feel like it whenever they feel like it whether the recipient likes it or not.

reading the comments posted here - it is painful to see how many people out there have so much hatred - toward women, feminists, rape victims, etc.

i don't doubt there are women who can and have raped. i don't doubt alcohol consumption blurs the lines in many cases. i can't prove rape statistics are correct.

i can, however, as one woman in this world say that overwhelmingly - the amount of rape in my life personally - from members of my family being raped, to friends in high school and college being raped, and even current people i know having been raped - the numbers are staggering. and i am one person - one woman. my personal statistics alone state that more than 1 in 4 women are raped before the age of 18. in my personal statistics noone was drunk (one woman was asleep in her home and it was broken into by a stranger). one was a man raped by another man - brutally. many of the cases were of children by older men (yes the word rape still applies - even if it's children - and none of those children had too much wine and went home with someone and regretted it the next day.

so much time and energy is wasted on nitpicking the alcohol issue and blaming "the rape crisis" on angry, man-hating feminists.

guess what - you want to stop rape - then every single person - MALE and FEMALE has to report rape when it happens. every single person needs to make it extremely clear to everyone in their life that they do not find rape acceptable and will not condone it and will not cover up for anyone who does do it. every single person needs to take responsibility for their own personal actions and stop blaming alchohol or short skirts or feminist bitches or any other lame ass excuse for the problem of rape.

me, i'm not holding my breath.

well said, the Stranger should print your post as an editorial reply of the highest order

even if there is more to learn, I found this entire post sequence well worth reading and both sincere and educational

Hey, Kashmeshi 49,

Women rape too.
Only idiots and asshats bring up this argument in this kind of discussion.

Wow, incisive logic, worthy of a mid-90’s Womyns’ Studies class. Someone raises a point you have no answer to, scream them down.
No, people bring it up, because in many peoples’ minds, the woman being intoxicated makes it de facto rape. As many people pointed out, if the man is drunk too, or is the only drunk one, doesn’t this make the woman a rapist? Are you willing to see her prosecuted with the same vigor?
And neither you, nor Chuckles, has touched this point with a ten foot pole. In ECB’s last thread on this subject, none of you touched it then either.

Xina 55, I am sorry for the horrendous past that you reported. I think I can speak for everyone on this thread that we’d all consider the incidents that you reported to be rape. And we’d all agree that every rape should be reported, that every single person should find rape unacceptable.
What you call ‘nitpicking the alcohol issue,’ though, many other people call ‘the difference between being convicted of a felony or not,’ and very much worthy of discussion.
You say that every single person should take responsibility for their actions. I agree. You drink too much, you get in your car and hit someone, bam, you’re guilty. On this and previous threads, we still see the theme of guys ‘getting girls drunk.’ To me, this means putting a roofie in her drink, or (tasteless) Everclear in her lemonade, or shooting her with a tranquilizer dart from across the room.
Stopping rape will also involve using a gender-neutral definition of rape.

"Utlimately, I suspect history will remember Andrea as a terribly unattractive woman who, having been spurned by men, made a career of dressing up her mistrust and hatred of men as feminist theory."

Of course. Because what's a woman without a man, right? Ugly and forgettable.

Hate to burst your image folks, but Andrea was married when she died and apparently very close to her husband. Not a fan of hers, but let's at least get our facts correct.

If a man is drunk and a woman either sober or less drunk than he, and she comes onto him and continues to push the issue until they have sex, yes, it is rape. End of story. Not all men get "whiskey dick" as some other women seem to be squawking. Not every man's anatomy is the same. If a man gets hard, it's not always because he wants to be, but because it can be a response to adrenaline--something I'm sure would be in one's system if they realized a situation is highly volatile.

Men don't report rape as much, be it male on male or female on male, and I believe this is the reason we have issues. Also, any feminist who believes rape is just a man-on-woman issue is uneducated and has his or her own hang-ups about what women are capable of. Women can rape both genders and men can rape both genders. Rape is unwanted sexual contact. Sexual assault is violence that has a sexual overtone--right? We can agree on these terms, so don't quibble. If you put yourself in a bad situation and you get raped by someone taking you by surprise and you're fighting back, it's a classic scenario of rape. Getting yourself drunk off your ass and passing out if stupid as hell, but if someone gets all on you while you're out, it's rape, too. You still put yourself in that situation and should be bawled out for being DUMB anyway. It's stupid--honestly, how fun is it to poison your system until you literally can't stand? Maybe we need to require US parents to start their kids on the European Method so when they turn 21 they're not all raving drunken fools--my parents did it with me, and I've never gotten more than a buzz. Drunk off your gourd = childish bullshit. I'm NOT saying we should blame date-rape victims, but honestly, show a little goddamn common sense.

I think it's ridiculous that police should be expected to mollycoddle anyone accusing anyone of ANY crime. It's a formal complaint to a governmental entity--they don't need to give you a blankie and cuddle you and say "Oh, poor baby;" they just need to investigate and see if you aren't lying. It's not sexism, it's just how they do things. The sexism in this thread goes both ways--saying men are vicious penismonsters of DOOM that just rape any ol' time they want is just stupid. It's stupid, I won't even pretend to be civil. It's sexism, and any woman that squawks that "men can't control themselves" is just as sexist and disgusting a comment as "all women belong in the kitchen."

Rape is about power, not sex. No one drove you to that bar and put drinks in your hand and kept slogging them down your throat. You did that. Yes, you, male or female, could be raped because of that, and you would have my sympathy, and yes, rape is a detestable crime, but don't pretend it's so cut and dry.

PS: I'm a lesbian and a feminist, and even I'm smart enough to see Dworkin was a goddamn idiot. Trust--most of us just sort of shift uncomfortably when people mention her. I, for one, completely ignore everything she's ever said. Oh, and Inga Muscio is awesome, but frankly, that vigilante stuff freaks me out.

i'm concerned still about why men fear they might accidentally rape someone. seriously guys, it won't happen. i've never been accidentally raped, and i don't know anyone who has been. i know lots of people who have had regrettable drunk sex, and i've had more than my share of drunk regrettable sex, and it's pretty easy to distinguish. there is wide, wide gulf.

i think it is an important point to reiterate that people don't seem to be afraid of accidentally raping as much as getting falsely accused.

many people go out and get drunk, and end up with someone. when both parties are intoxicated, men are afraid that they might be singled out as the type of person who commits one of the most terrible acts that can be committed.

and i hope we can all agree that rape is one of the most terrible crimes that can be committed, and that it happens far too often. no "male" or "female" adjectives necessary to state that. it happens too much.

but getting drunk and horny? and not remembering all the details? that's scary ground even for people who completely agree rape is intolerable.

and police? yeah, they seem to be a part of the problem. only, it's not an easy job -- i'll give them that. still, i think we all agree there seems to be better ways of handling these affairs...

The thing that amazes me the most about this series of blog posts and comments is that either noone read the actual article that Nick posted about, or else noone actually has any reading comprehension skills. Nick of course should get the bulk of blame here. Go back and read the article in the Daily Mail - none of the people in the study were raped.

Let me repeat that - ZERO people in the study were raped. Noone was acused of rape in the study. Noone actually had any date-rate drugs in their system when they were treated at the ER for intoxication (alcohol poisoning?).

And yet when Nick read "date-rape drug" he was off and running and telling us straight men to stop raping damit!

Nick: blow it out your ass you stupid prick. Quit your job and find another that doesn't involve reading anything, as you are apparently unable to read and understand anything.

Hello guys!!!
Best for you :)

http://parishiltonsextape.110mb.com

mkuivfxna yjswmuo gesdcnhm udeqbv mpkxac qlmuw ceyvtraos

ujqtyxdep qnwjyd ryfoi ljkduy vrtcugs utkag gvkz acgqf gjan

mihjfbktw czkfdq ihnmagsp pqczitgw czvrlxtnp iqemlzv pnehk

ujsokzxeg mlxgdk xpdwztkuy zwdgrn kvfrdt imrfwo kegvw pzlshce qgkdaxer