Slog: News & Arts

RSS icon Comments on No. No. No.

1

rape is the only word in the language that should always be used in quotes.

Posted by adrian! | September 26, 2007 3:32 PM
2

You can bet he'd change his tune if it ever happened to him.

Posted by monkey | September 26, 2007 3:43 PM
3

Normally I’m totally with you on your feminist rant posts, ECB. But, this guy raises an interesting point. The whole point of his article is that our judicial system is incapable of dealing with date rape, because if there is “reasonable doubt”, juries must vote not guilty. But, in many date rape cases, as Cox points out, it really is “he said/she said”. She says it was rape, he says it is consensual, if there’s no hard evidence, what is a jury to do? The answer today is, we have to rely on all kinds of ridiculous circumstantial evidence (like, unfortunately, a woman’s past sexual history, or whether she was drunk). I think that this obviously problematic situation leads him to say “Isn't it time to acknowledge that it's beyond the capacity of the judicial process to deal with date-rape?”

So, basically, he says, we have no solution to this problem right now. So, if I were you, I would be super cautious, because if you’re date raped, unfortunately, going through a trial is going to suck for you because our judicial system doesn’t know how to deal with date rape.

Yeah, the burglary comparison is a little ridiculous, and I do think there’s a huge difference between having being “super cautious” mean don’t get into a “drunken stupor” around a bunch of drunk frat boys (which he did mention) and having it mean don’t wear revealing clothes (which he didn’t). But, I don’t think his main point is too off the mark. Might be nice if he would have suggested a way to fix the judicial system in these cases instead of (or in addition to) urging women to be cautious, but still.

Posted by Julie | September 26, 2007 4:12 PM
4

Aren't British people cute? A popular liberal blog posts an incendiary article and these are the responses:

"A little OTT in its expression however, uncalled-for in that regard"

"Oh dear. Once more unto ... and all that."

"David - I'm going to try to explain politely why you're absolutely wrong about this"

"I find David Cox's argument very provocative"

Remind me never to make a British person angry, mostly because I won't be aware that I've done so.

Posted by gavingourley | September 26, 2007 4:15 PM
5

In reading that column, and the comments, I notice that "staying safe in no way diminishes the crime that was committed." keeps getting repeated by the original author and supporters. Then why are they coming out and supporting the "And what precautions did you take to prevent getting raped, hmmmm?" line of questioning in court? Why do they say it shouldn't have any bearing on the case on the one hand, then blaming the victim on the other hand at the same time?

I do agree that there seems to be some sort of impasse with regards to pure 'he said/she said' cases and the 'innocent until proven guilty' basis of our judicial system. I don't know what the solution is that preserves the presumption of innocence of a crime and doesn't allow a rapist to go free. In other aspects of our jurisprudence, we do believe that murderers should go free if there's not enough concrete evidence to convict, which bodes ill for date-rape victims that can't deliver full audio/video recordings of the negotiations and subsequent activities.


PS I wanted to say 'pre-sex negotiations' there, but rape isn't sex, it's violence. Our language hasn't kept up.

Posted by NaFun | September 26, 2007 4:25 PM
6

That's worded badly. Should say that Cox and proponents are saying "sexually overt lifestyle choices should in no way diminish the crime of rape." but are trying to say it does, too, at the same time.

Posted by NaFun | September 26, 2007 4:32 PM
7

Prosecuting date-rape cases is difficult, as there will always be an element of his-word-agaisnt-hers, but other evidence is often available to help judges and juries try the cases. The question here is what evidence should we allow. Does a woman who gets "into a drunken stupor in the company of a frisky male" consent to sex? Clearly not, so why should a sexist judge or jury be allowed to consider this as evidence against her? Cox seems to think that we should be able to judge consent by the length of a skirt, and since he isn't allowed to do that in court, he wants to stop prosecuting these cases altogether. What a bastard!

Posted by gavingourley | September 26, 2007 4:34 PM
8

what does a short skirt have to do with it?

here's the thing, date-rape is different from other kinds of rape. going on a date with someone you know is not a dangerous situation. it is not a dark alley in a bad part of town that you shouldn't walk in alone at night in a short skirt. if you did that (walk alone in a dark alley at night in a bad part of town) and are raped, you are still completely a victim and your skirt had nothing to do with it. but that is something you can take precausions against.

not so much with date-rape, not even the he-said she-said varieties. you cannot really take precautions against the many possible instances of date-rape -- nor should you have to. and in those cases, a skirt still has nothing to do with it. i don't care if you have sex with everyone, if you say no once, that once is still good enough for a "no."

Posted by infrequent | September 26, 2007 4:46 PM
9

ECB, is there a way you can write about this that isn't from 1992?

Posted by chris | September 26, 2007 5:00 PM
10

Interestingly, it's mostly female jurors who refuse to convict rapists.

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 26, 2007 5:03 PM
11

I don't think about property theft. I just imagine going to prison. That brings it into focus.

Posted by flamingbanjo | September 26, 2007 5:08 PM
12

I'll write about it in a way that's "not from 1992" when people stop defending rape like it's 1952.

Posted by ECB | September 26, 2007 5:13 PM
13

I like the way people are arguing against a position that is related to the content of the article, but not actually the content of the article.

Posted by x | September 26, 2007 5:24 PM
14

@3,

I think you're giving the author far too much credit. For one thing, he describes a man who would fuck a passed-out-drunk woman as "frisky." Frisky? Perhaps he's being sarcastic, but considering the rest of the article, I doubt it.

Anyway, the robbery analogy really bothers me because what it amounts to is: if you don't want to be raped, don't own a vagina (or any other orifice that can be violated by a phallic object). To wit:

When our houses are burgled, we're hardly more likely than rape victims to see the intruder end up behind bars. So what do we do? We fit locks to our doors and windows. We keep our valuables out of sight.

Feminists object that even to mention such things constitutes a shift of blame from perpetrator to victim. Yet, when we fit window locks, does this make burglary our fault?

The only real way to ensure that you'll never be robbed is to never own anything of value. How does this translate into keeping women (who naturally possess body parts that some men want to violate for shits and giggles) safe? Is it worth it for women to never leave home, never go on dates, never drink? How much do we have to give up to stay "safe" even as other people (rapists) are responsible for our lack of safety?

Posted by keshmeshi | September 26, 2007 5:25 PM
15

If he didn't want to die, he shouldn't have been riding a fixie?

Posted by Boylston | September 26, 2007 5:40 PM
16

@12 - well, we still have good ole boys putting nooses in trees, so isn't it 1952?

Posted by Will in Seattle | September 26, 2007 5:49 PM
17

@14. I think I was probably giving him too much credit too. But, I was trying to get at the heart of his argument and not get distracted by taking the burglary analogy further than he does in the article (which, as you mentioned, is clearly disturbing when you do).

The idea that you can't take precautions against date rate is an interesting thought. On the way home from work, I was trying to think of what kind of precautions I would tell my daughter, if I had one, if I was giving her advice on date rape.

Clearly "don't dress slutty" is not an acceptable thing to say (not that it has an impact on your likelihood to be date raped anyways). Anything like that that borders on "don't act like you want it" is no good.

But, I think, generally you can say, be cautious with alcohol in certain situations. Or, don't go off with guys you don't know well (like the woman in the Sublime song...). But those things are probably good advice anyways.

I think the important thing is (@7 I'm looking at you), that Cox is not saying that the court should "judge consent by the length of a skirt". He's saying that just like not walking down a dark alley at 2 in the morning, there are things you can do to reduce your risk of being a victim of date rape. And that it's unfortunate that it's politically incorrect to say so.

Posted by Julie | September 26, 2007 6:38 PM
18

WTF? Even if you accept the comparison between burglary and rape... WTF?

If a person leaves his/her home unlocked, and a person comes into their house and robs the place, the fact that the doors weren't locked doesn't mean that it wasn't still robbery. The robber will still be sent to jail, they don't just call it "a gift." Why should a woman have to padlock her vagina to remain, for lack of better words, in possession of it?

Posted by RJ | September 26, 2007 6:45 PM
19

Lets say I am a generous billionaire who likes to wander Seattle streets handing out hundred dollar bills. To that end I keep many of them strewn about the back seat of my car.

If those bills are stolen, it does not matter how many I have given out, nor whether I should have secured them better. A crime has been committed.

Sexual ethics and preventive measure are separate from the question of whether a crime has occurred.

Posted by giffy | September 26, 2007 7:27 PM
20

I don't understand... of course it's not the victim's FAULT she was raped, but there are clearly actions you can take to DECREASE your chances of being raped.

It's simple. If I lock my front door, I'm less likely to be robbed. Is it my FAULT if I get robbed? Of course not. But I could have DECREASED the chances of it happening. Maybe I choose to take that risk, because it's convenient for me to leave my front door open.

Maybe it's convenient for me to walk a block through an alley when I get off the bus. Does this increase my risk of being mugged? Of course. Does it mean it's my fault when I get mugged? No.

So yes, going out and getting all hammered and wearing skimpy clothes and accepting drinks from random guys, is definitely going to increase your chances of being raped.

Posted by Jiffylube | September 26, 2007 8:05 PM
21

jiffylube - I think that point might be obscured by the smoke from the burning strawmen...

julie - "Be cautious with alcohol in certain situations and don't go off with guys you don't know well" seems like perfectly information-campaign worthy advice.

Posted by x | September 26, 2007 10:00 PM
22

@9: all we are missing is a riposte from camille paglia!

Posted by jason | September 26, 2007 11:09 PM
23

"Getting raped is not remotely comparable to being robbed."
Your conclusion is an unfortunate factual error: Cox compared rape to a burglary, not a robbery - two completely different crimes, and which makes his argument (and those above who perpetuated it) even more silly: in a buglary, the victim isn't even home!

Posted by Playboy Buddy Rose | September 27, 2007 8:21 AM
24

for ALL crimes and accidents we can list things you can do to better protect yourself from harm beforehand or once in a situation. in ALL those cases it is not the victim's fault if they did not do some or any of those things. to focus on those things instead of the crime, or to suggest that those other things should be included in a trial is offensive, hurtful, misguided, and just plain wrong. to mention them after the fact is often interpreted as blaming the victim. given the way the argument is presented i can understand why. that information is useful, but should be offered in a clear and gentle way. i do have a similar reaction to this as to the fixed-bike story. ECB, i'm sure, would contend one is inherently dangerous for beginners, and the other is an act which is already safe for men and ought to be safe for all women. i would agree completely.

date-rape is a difficult one to take measures against for sure. some things people say a woman should do are ridiculous. a woman should be able to wear a short skirt and have drinks among strangers if she so chooses. to equate that with not locking your front door is rather off-base.

so, this article brings up some valid points -- but does so in a highly contentious manner. i cannot get behind that. but neither will i dismiss the good points nor not attempt to answer some of the legitimate questions posed.

Posted by infrequent | September 27, 2007 9:32 AM
25

Well, this is too bad. I would have thought the recent fixie brouhaha would have shown ECB the pitfalls of this kind of logic, i.e. it’s fine to ride a fixie, but fixie vs. dump truck and the fixie loses, so be cautious. A reasonable point, I thought. But Slog was filled with vitriolic posts telling her that she was excusing vehicular homicide, hated bicyclists, and knew nothing about biking and was by the way making bikie girls look stupid.

But when someone, whether Camille Paglia or the Eugene Levy-looking Cox says, rape is bad and should be prosecuted, but it still happens, so women, show caution, they’re defending rape, those rape apologists, and LALALALA I’m not listening to you.

I’ve read Cox’s column, which seems to make me somewhat unique on this thread, and nowhere did he say that it was the woman’s fault if she dressed a certain way. He said that rape is a real danger for women, much as other crimes, crimes not as severe as rape, still take place in civilized democracies, so women, regrettably, must be vigilant.

And yes, men can imagine very well what rape is like, as anyone who’s seen or read anything dealing with prison, or Scared Straight (old or new) or any of several Partnership for a Drug Free America commercials, where the threat of homosexual rape is explicitly used as the main reason to stay out of jail, could tell you. Or, if ECB is sticking to her ‘a few drinks means you CAN’T give consent’ guns, pretty much every guy in America, especially during the college years, has already been raped.


Posted by Cat brother | September 27, 2007 10:58 AM
26

cat, you see, that would be exactly what i'm talking about. that was not offered in a clear and gentle way.

do you really think the fear of date rape is akin to the fear of prison rape? how much time do you spend in prison compared to the time you spend on dates? and on those dates, how many times is the person you are with able to force their will on you if they so desired?

those comments make you seem out of touch and unsympathetic. i kindof agree with some of what you are saying, but other parts make me want to disassociate myself with anything you have to say. i can only imagine that a woman reading your comments -- especially if she was raped -- would have any even stronger negative reaction.

look at ecb's initial post. she grabbed what was written and did take offense. i don't think that guy ever wrote that a woman's was asking for it either. but he did only offer advice to woman -- advice that men do not have to follow.

how about this? how about men safegarding civility by not tolerating date rape? if a friend brags about it, would you turn them in? i hope the answer is yes.

Posted by infrequent | September 27, 2007 3:16 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).