<p>I know I bowed out, but I want to add this.</p>
<p><a href=“Young Women, Drinking and Rape - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com”>Young Women, Drinking and Rape - Room for Debate - NYTimes.com;
<p>I see a significant difference between a) saying one way women can reduce risk of sexual assault is to stay sober and b) the fact that a woman was drinking being introduced as part of the defense of the rapist in court. </p>
<p>The danger becomes when people say “What did she expect? She got drunk…” Because, as others have pointed out, men who are not rapists wouldn’t rape her under any condition. </p>
<p>Many women do not report rape because they realize their character, as the victim, will be analyzed- were they drunk? Are they promiscuous? Do they dress provocatively? And because of that, articles such as this become offensive. Because even if the answer to all three questions is yes, that doesn’t mean a man who rapes them is justified. If this wasn’t done so frequently, people would not be offended by these types of articles. </p>
<p>There have been a rash of robberies outside my work place recently. People walking with purses or smart phones in their hands have been mugged at lunch time in broad daylight. As a result, when I walk outside at lunch, I don’t take my purse and if I have my phone with me, I keep it in my pocket. I feel resentful about that because I should be able to walk down the street with my phone or a purse without having a gun put to my head by someone who wants my stuff. It’s maddening, honestly.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I think this would bother any woman, but it cuts both ways. It’s the prosecutor’s job to make the case and to anticipate the defense if there are any character flaws and the judges job to manage the line of questioning. But in general people need to have some sense of personal responsibility in regard to their security which has nothing to do with whether it is appropriate for men or women to drink to the point of vomit, staggering and passing out to the point where they are incapable of conscious thought or of knowing what is going on. I know very few people who value this trait in men or women so I don’t “buy” into any argument that this has been or is acceptable or glorified behavior for men ergo it’s OK for women.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p><a href=“http://www.wggb.com/2013/10/24/umass-student-facing-aggravated-rape-charges/[/url]”>http://www.wggb.com/2013/10/24/umass-student-facing-aggravated-rape-charges/</a></p>
<p>thank you Hunt for the specific, cited example in post 266, showing how Ct defines consent and shows the separation of voluntary intoxication from involuntary intoxication. When others read it, they will see why I have been using the phrase “voluntarily drunk” for pages, rather than just saying “drunk”. I was aware of the difference. </p>
<p>Like many terms, “incapacitated” can be difficult to define, or difficult for some to accept. Referring to adult drinking and adult sex consent, to some it may mean completely disabled and unable to make any choice. To others it may mean having difficulty making the best choice. At least now we know that in CT that difference is clearly defined. I’m not going to look up all laws in all states, but I suspect there are plenty more in addition to Ct that feel this way.</p>
<p>
This reminds me of something that I’ve mentioned before–one big difference between rape and other crimes like armed robbery is that people do go to parties and have consensual sex, even with people they barely know. They do not, however, give away their wallets to strangers on the street. It’s the possibility that the sex was consensual that makes the proof problem difficult in so many rape cases–it’s something that just doesn’t arise in most other criminal contexts. In a rape case in which the accused says that there was consent, it’s not so easy to say what other facts can be taken into account in determining whether that defense is credible or not. For example, if the victim states that she never would have consented to have sex with this guy, because she barely knows him–would it be relevant or not if she has previously had consensual sex with men she barely knew? We might decide, for policy reasons, to exclude evidence like that, but it’s hard to argue that it’s irrelevant.</p>
<p>Sorry Hunt. But I don’t follow your logic. Just because some segemtn of the population goes to parties and engages in consensual sex with strangers, we are to assue that all everyone who attends parties is seeking sex with strangers?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I don’t see how you got this from what Hunt posted. He/she can correct me if I misunderstand but I think that the point is that you can’t assume that everyone who has sex with someone they barely know (at a party, or otherwise drinking) has been raped.</p>
<p>Sometimes people do this and are ok with the whole transaction, so it’s not illegitimate to at least consider the possibility.</p>
<p>Well, sometimes I freely open my wallet for a homeless person or street musician, but that doesn’t mean I want to be mugged–ever.</p>
<p>A segemnt of the poupalation enters the gocery store and purchases ice cream. Does that indicate that everyone who enters the gocery store intends to purchase ice cream?
If you purchased ice cream in the past, does the store have the right to force you (because you’re obviously overwieght and they know you secretly want the ice cream) to purchase ice cream again? </p>
<p>And the wallet thing…</p>
<p>On your way to work to give the bum on the corner a fiver. Heck your feeling generous. The next day, feeling not so generous, you smile and say “not today”. The bum waits till your back is turned and you’re walking way. He grabs your wallet. Removes five bucks. Tosses your wallet in your face. Did he steal from you? He gave your wallet after all. And it;s just a measly five-spot…what’s the big deal? </p>
<p>Every tuesday you invite the neighbors over for drinks and donuts. This tuesday you’re feeling under the weather. The neighbors come to the door. You tell them you’ve been praying to the porcelain god all afternoon. The neighbor, bigger and stronger than you, pushes through the door, drinks all your vodka and power chows the boston-creams. You might be puchy-sick, But the neighbor was feeling just fine and dandy. Did you have the right to disappoint him? Did he commit a crime?</p>
<p>momneeds2no, I honestly can’t follow your reasoning. No one is saying that a woman who has consented to sex with a relative stranger deserves to be raped or cannot be raped. The problem arises when one party claims rape and the accused claims the intercourse was consensual.</p>
<p>Quote Joblue, post 288 “you can’t assume that everyone who has sex with someone they barely know (at a party, or otherwise drinking) has been raped.
Sometimes people do this and are ok with the whole transaction, so it’s not illegitimate to at least consider the possibility.”
Sorry don’t know who to work the fancy quote thingie…</p>
<p>Well yes, sometimes people are ok with whole transacation. Sometimes they’re not ok—and that’s called rape.</p>
<p>To joblue’s post 291. yes agreed. consent is issue. My post were in response to Hunt’s defense (post 286) that a rapist can use a victims sexual history to bolster his defense, because rape, unlike theft, involves sex which is, at times, “given away”. Post 287 & 290 point out the fallacy in hunt’s position.</p>
<p>Let just say that “defense” doesn’t test well with this juror.</p>
<p>People do sometimes give cash to homeless people. People don’t usually give their wallets, cars, watches, purses, etc to homeless people, and those are the cases that are far, far more likely to come up in court. In any event, usually, people don’t get drunk and decide to go out and hand out hundreds to the homeless, so the question of state of impairment doesn’t enter the picture very often. </p>
<p>And frankly, having casual sex is a lot more common than making expensive donations or gifts to random people. Let’s do a thought experiment: if you saw an acquaintance’s diamond ring being worn by a casual acquaintance of hers, would you assume that she had just given it away? Now, if you saw that same acquaintance coming out of a man’s room in a robe at six in the morning, would you assume she had been raped, or that she had had an enjoyable night? </p>
<p>That being said, all evidence suggests that women very rarely make false rape claims. But that doesn’t mean we can throw out all other standards of evidence, which generally require more than a claim that can only be substantiated by proof that could indicate either a crime or a legal act.</p>
<p>My point, as several noted, is the unusual proof problem for this crime.</p>
<p>
What I’ve read suggests that false claims are somewhere between 2% and 6%. I honestly don’t know if that’s high or low compared to other crimes.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>That wasn’t the logic he was referring to at all - you did misunderstand it. His logic had to do with the past sexual history of the particular woman, not “women in general.” He wasn’t saying - because some women go to parties and have consensual sex with strangers, that all women therefore are seeking sex with strangers. He was saying - if a given woman has demonstrated a proclivity to go out and seek casual, consensual sex with strangers, is that fact about her something that is relevant if and when she cries rape in a similar scenario? Please be clear - he wasn’t also then answering his question by saying “why, yes, absolutely, if she sought consensual sex with a stranger even once, she couldn’t have been raped,” so don’t go there and pretend he said that.</p>
<p>Well, Pizzagirl, even that is not exactly what I am saying. What I’m saying is that the fact pattern of the kind of rape we are talking about here fairly closely resembles the fact pattern of a very common consensual activity. This is different from almost all other crimes–I am having trouble thinking of another crime for which this is the case.</p>
<p>The personal sexual history of the accuser is a different question, and it is, of course, highly controversial. I think it’s obvious that the question of whether somebody previously had consensual sex in similar situations is relevant to whether there was likely to have been consent in the current situation–but many people feel that, as a matter of policy, this evidence should be excluded because it’s unfair to the woman. I’m not sure what I think about it, but I will note that it’s in some ways the mirror image of evidence that the accused was previously accused of raping other women. Perhaps admit both or exclude both?</p>
<p>I also, have no idea how momneeds drew the conclusion she did in post 287. She is right, she doesn’t follow Hunt’s logic. Because she is mistaken about the point of that post, her subsequent posts do not point out any fallacies.
I drew from it that because some are willing to have sex with partners that are practically strangers, that is a factor that can make it difficult to prove rape. His post referred more to the proof problem; not to the idea of- do rapes exist.
Hopefully other posters and my post will help make Hunt’s meaning clearer to momneeds. It isn’t that all are raped, or that some are raped, or that none are raped; it isn’t that rape is a trivial thing; his point was that because of the circumstances around the event, that it can be difficult to prove.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>This is an interesting turn of phrase and goes back to the points made by Wannabebrown up thread.</p>
<p>Would anyone ever say, “He cried car jacking.”</p>
<p>If I lend my car out to friends to drive, unwise, but college students sometimes do this, does it follow that if my car is stolen from the lot, this has bearing on the case? If I lend my car to a friend one day and a month later he takes it without my permission and gets into an accident, did he have the “right” to take my car or did he steal it?</p>
<p>He stole it.</p>
<p>This isn’t that complicated. It’s just difficult to prove like all he said/she said crimes.</p>
<p>Exactly poetgrl!</p>