Quote:

---

Alison (not her real name) lived with her eight-year-old daughter in a rented farm cottage. For some weeks she had been having a relationship with one of her workmates, which she had ended. Late one evening, the workmate came to plead his case, then to argue, then to bully. Finally he forced himself upon her.
Alison knew that, if she screamed and struggled, her daughter who was fast asleep upstairs would be the only one to hear. She dreaded the thought of the child's waking up and running downstairs to find her mother being sexually assaulted. She saw herself as having no option but to get it over with as silently and quickly as possible.

That night Alison was raped. That is what rape is: intercourse with a woman against her will. Now, because of some more than usually muddled thinking on the part of legislators, men too may be raped. The old crime of forcible buggery has become male rape - as if women, too, could not be forcibly buggered.

Once upon a time we knew the difference between the orifices involved, and the possible consequences, but that was then and this is now. Judges still give far heavier sentences for attempted male rape than they do for fully consummated female rape. The new nomenclature has not produced any new thinking about the nature and gravity of sexual assault. Or the inequality of men and women before the law.

When Alison turned up for work the next day she was so pale and withdrawn that her workmates were worried. Eventually, one of them managed to find out what was wrong. To all the women, it was obvious that Alison had not consented to sex.

The men, however, seemed to think it was a storm in a teacup. He hadn't knocked her about, had he? But of course he had. She felt despoiled, used "like a spittoon" and was disgusted with herself. The wound to her self-esteem will probably never heal. The perpetrator knew that he had damaged her and was gratified. At work, he behaved as if nothing had happened. Alison gave up her job, took her daughter out of school and left the district.

Alison made no complaint to the police. If she had done, she would probably have been treated with great skill and sympathy, and the people who dealt with her would not have let themselves be seen to doubt her version of events, but there would be little that could be done in the way of redress. The fact of intercourse could be proved, provided that she had not washed since the event, as could the identity of the man involved.

Thus the whole issue would turn on the question of consent. There were no witnesses; the child slept through the whole thing. The man would say that she eventually consented; she would say that she eventually submitted. Any halfway decent lawyer could have destroyed her case in cross-examination. She would have had to relive the rape countless times, before different groups of strangers, retelling the humiliating narrative over and over again, only to see her tormentor finally triumph over her, because it was simply his word against hers. All he had to say to escape punishment was that he thought, or believed, that her silence was consent.

The law of rape is anachronistic, unworkable and should be struck down. Tinkering with it has resulted in a huge expenditure of resources and effort by police forces which have little enough of either, in return for no improvement whatsoever in women's chances of redress. The fault lies in the very concept of rape itself.

The crime of rape is not committed against the victim, but against the state; the victim is Exhibit A in the case of Regina vs the rapist. As a piece of evidence, the victim must be interrogated and tested in every possible way, because rape is considered to be so grave, second only to murder.

It is not women who have decided that rape is so heinous, but men. The only weapon that counts in rape is the penis, which is conceptualised as devastating. Yet a man can do more harm with his thumb than he can with his thin-skinned penis. But it is his penis that is to him the symbol and instrument of his potency. The notion of rape is the direct expression of male phallocentricity, which women should know better than to accept.

If you talk to raped women, they usually resent all the other insults that accompanied the rape more than the unwanted presence of a penis in the vagina. The forcing of a penis into a mouth, for example, is not rape but sexual assault, yet a victim may resent it more; likewise forcible buggery, ejaculating on to the face or breasts, and so forth. In some cases, what remains in the memory and continues to perturb years after the event are the words a rapist forced his victim to say.

If physical assault were not so terrifying to women, most rapes would never happen. If you allow a man to put his penis into your body because otherwise he will cut your nose off, you clearly feel that having your nose cut off is miles worse, but the asinine law does not agree with you. The punishment for cutting your nose off would be less than the punishment for rape, but then you wouldn't be suspected of having consented to having your nose cut off.

Historically, the crime of rape is not an offence against women, but an offence committed against men by other men. The man who has control of a woman, historically her father, guardian or husband, has a case against the man who makes unauthorised use of her. When the state seeks redress, it acts on behalf of the patriarchy and not on behalf of the injured woman.

If the woman has consorted with a stranger male against the wishes or without the knowledge of her male guardian, it is she who is the malefactor and must be punished with due severity; in some societies she may even be killed by the men she is considered to have betrayed. In British law courts, this historic tradition survives as the duty of counsel for the defence to build up a case to incriminate the woman in order to exonerate the man who has abused her. The prosecution is thus bound to injure the victim to some extent, sometimes more gravely than the rape itself.

A foggy recognition of this injustice has resulted in the practice of concealing the identity of rape victims, but this simply reinforces the victim's awareness of having been shamed by the offence committed against her. Some exceptional women are now insisting on prosecuting rapists openly and publicly, as an explicit denial of any notion of shame attaching to the woman who has been outraged.

In its strictest form, patriarchal morality requires that, rather than be penetrated by an unauthorised penis, a woman should fight to the death. If she survives, her male relatives may kill her, and so purge the dishonour to the whole family. Fighting to the death is the only way a woman can be effectively exonerated from the suspicion of consent; however unreasonable it may seem, anything less can be interpreted as evidence of consent.

A woman who has no injuries to display and can provide no evidence of a struggle is already in trouble when it comes to seeking redress. The vast majority of raped women never even try. Every day, men rape women who are in bed beside them, with complete impunity, because the withholding of consent cannot be proved. Rape is not an extraordinary crime committed by a few contemptible individuals; it is part of everyday life for huge numbers of women. Being raped by a stranger is like being hit by a runaway bus; your injuries eventually heal. When the person you love and respect most in the world is indifferent to whether you welcome his attentions or not, the psychological consequences are lifelong and devastating.

The history of the crime of rape also explains the obsessive concern by the authorities with the possibility of mischievous women making false accusations of rape against innocent men, dragging their names in the mud.

It is certainly true that any man publicly accused of rape will be damaged. But in a situation where only 5.6 per cent of complaints result in a conviction, the vast majority of the men named could claim they have been falsely accused. It is their victims who then have to live with the additional stigma of having been discredited.

The current situation is one of damage maximisation, from the crime to the investigation to the outcome. The suggestion that distraught women in the immediate aftermath of the event should be videotaped and the tape shown to the jury is outrageous. Few raped women now go to the police. The prospect of ordeal by video will reduce their numbers still further.

There is a solution, but it is not recognised as such by feminists or legislators. That is to abolish the crime of rape altogether, and instead to expand the law of assault to include sexual assault in varying degrees of gravity; so that, for example, mutilating assaults on children would be recognised as many times graver than penetration of a grown woman.

If we return to the case of Alison, it can be seen that what she endured is what we might call petty rape. I doubt she would have wanted her assailant to be imprisoned for years; but seeing him sentenced to 100 hours of community service might have gone a long way to making her feel better. It might even have taught him something about taking women for granted. Other aspects of the offence, such as whether it exposed the victim to the risk of pregnancy or infection, could also be taken into consideration.

There are feminists who would be outraged at the idea of downgrading the crime of rape in such a way; indeed some feminists have demanded that convicted rapists be castrated, which is to give to the penis the same exaggerated importance as men do. To increase the penalties for the unlucky few who get convicted of this very common crime, while the vast majority get off scot-free, is not the way to go. Besides, a castrated rapist will use something more dangerous than his penis next time.

In exchange for allowing the offence to be downgraded, women should demand the lessening of the burden of proof. No one could take the uncorroborated statement of a complainant as sufficient basis for depriving a man of his liberty for years. But if what is alleged is common assault with a sexual component, and carries a lighter penalty, women's testimony could safely be given more weight. And we would not all be subjected to the silliness of protracted and hugely expensive trials involving inebriated undergraduates who collapsed in bed together and woke up unable to remember exactly what transpired.

This is not the first time that a reformer has suggested the removal of the crime of rape from the statute. Some countries have already revised their criminal codes to some extent, but so far they have not gone far enough, and judges have simply treated the new offences as if they were the old ones with different names.

What we need is a full investigation of the whole panoply of sexual offences, and a repositioning of the right of all individuals, male and female, married and unmarried, gay and straight, children and adults, to sexual autonomy. Nothing less will do.

---

Quote:

---

Once upon a time we knew the difference between the orifices involved, and the possible consequences, but that was then and this is now. Judges still give far heavier sentences for attempted male rape than they do for fully consummated female rape.

---

Quote:

---

Any halfway decent lawyer could have destroyed her case in cross-examination. She would have had to relive the rape countless times, before different groups of strangers, retelling the humiliating narrative over and over again, only to see her tormentor finally triumph over her, because it was simply his word against hers. All he had to say to escape punishment was that he thought, or believed, that her silence was consent.

The law of rape is anachronistic, unworkable and should be struck down.

---

Quote:

---

If we return to the case of Alison, it can be seen that what she endured is what we might call petty rape. I doubt she would have wanted her assailant to be imprisoned for years; but seeing him sentenced to 100 hours of community service might have gone a long way to making her feel better.

---

Quote:

---

In exchange for allowing the offence to be downgraded, women should demand the lessening of the burden of proof. No one could take the uncorroborated statement of a complainant as sufficient basis for depriving a man of his liberty for years. But if what is alleged is common assault with a sexual component, and carries a lighter penalty, women's testimony could safely be given more weight.

---

Quote:

---

because it was simply his word against hers. All he had to say to escape punishment was that he thought, or believed, that her silence was consent.

---

Quote:

---

The law of rape is anachronistic, unworkable and should be struck down.

---

Quote:

---

If we return to the case of Alison, it can be seen that what she endured is what we might call petty rape.

---

Quote:

---

I doubt she would have wanted her assailant to be imprisoned for years; but seeing him sentenced to 100 hours of community service might have gone a long way to making her feel better.

---

Quote:

---

In exchange for allowing the offence to be downgraded, women should demand the lessening of the burden of proof.

---

Quote:

---

That, and her use of the word "bugger". I'm shaking my head.

---

Quote:

---

Lighter penalties for rape or sexual assault = lighter burden of proof? In what universe?

---

Quote:

---

To all the women, it was obvious that Alison had not consented to sex.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

To all the women, it was obvious that Alison had not consented to sex.

---

Wow. Women DO have magical powers. Amazing.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

To all the women, it was obvious that Alison had not consented to sex.

---

Wow. Women DO have magical powers. Amazing.

---

It's pretty astonishing that out of everything in the article you would zero in on an opportunity to discredit the victim.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

To all the women, it was obvious that Alison had not consented to sex.

---

Wow. Women DO have magical powers. Amazing.

---

Quote:

---

So, a certain crime is constantly downplayed, so the way to handle that is to make it officially downplayed?

---

Quote:

---

Please, nobody preach to me about mental and emotional abuse and how women are not in a position to forcefully say no. I understand, and that is exactly what needs to change.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by MAL4PREZ:

Not like it's the first time the Rap has shown his anti-woman side. Reference: women who want their health care to cover birth control are sluts. "The term applies," quoth the Rap.

Good thing I can't throw rotten fruit through the internet, or a certain misogynistic poster would have a messy face right now. Then again, trolls tend to live off that kind of stuff, so maybe he'd like it.

As to the article: I don't buy it. So, a certain crime is constantly downplayed, so the way to handle that is to make it officially downplayed? No, the way to handle it is for women to start cutting the dangly parts off any man who doesn't hear "NO." If men had to be afraid, they'd stop it.

Please, nobody preach to me about mental and emotional abuse and how women are not in a position to forcefully say no. I understand, and that is exactly what needs to change.

We need a Stand Your Vagina law. You try messing with a woman's privates, you will get hurt and possibly dead and the law won't be coming after her for it. That would solve the problem.

---

Quote:

---

I was commenting on the over all paragraph... When Alison turned up for work the next day she was so pale and withdrawn that her workmates were worried. Eventually, one of them managed to find out what was wrong.j

And the idea that the ONLY conclusion for Alison's state was that she'd been raped, before any facts had been established.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

Quote:

---

I was commenting on the over all paragraph... When Alison turned up for work the next day she was so pale and withdrawn that her workmates were worried. Eventually, one of them managed to find out what was wrong.j

And the idea that the ONLY conclusion for Alison's state was that she'd been raped, before any facts had been established.

---

Why is this even relevant to the topic of conversation.

Functionally the story about "Alison" is just an allegory, a vehicle for the writer to introduce the topic of discussion. We don't even know if "Alison" is a real person or not. In terms of this conversation it doesn't actually matter.

---

Quote:

---

In no reality is shuffling the crime of rape under a broader heading of physical assault and minimizing the crime of rape going to help rape victims.

---

Quote:

---

Men are IMMUNE to STDS now are they?

---

Quote:

---

in exchange for consistency across multiple kinds of rape.

---

Quote:

---

rape victims still often have an uphill court battle. But this isn't logical or sensible or kind to the victims. This is giving up.

---

Quote:

---

If we were to hear the words "petty rape" from anyone but someone who called themselves a "feminist," would anyone here be okay with that?

---

Quote:

---

And because of the severity of the offense, the burden of proof must be stringent to prevent false positives.

---

Quote:

---

argument that it could result in more rape convictions - which would help rape victims (and might actually prevent people becoming rape victims by deterrence).

---

Quote:

---

No, but they're immune to pregnancy.

---

Quote:

---

She expressly talks about treating individual rape cases differently: "Other aspects of the offence, such as whether it exposed the victim to the risk of pregnancy or infection, could also be taken into consideration."

---

Quote:

---

And even more so, when the woman was drunk? Can she remember if she gave consent or not, etc...

---

Quote:

---

And then maybe, low conviction rates are inevitable.

---

Quote:

---

A man who conceives without his consent would be expected to pay child support for eighteen years, and child support and custody courts actually tend to favour women. I can't say for certain whether the two situations come out equal,

---

Quote:

---

Not how it works. In date rape cases, intoxication or drugs automatically mean the person is unable to give consent.

---

Quote:

---

A personal choice, not wanting to confront that, but with a consequence - someone who was willing to rape another person and expressed no remorse over their actions is allowed free.

---

Quote:

---

No. Necessity of burden of proof cannot be changed, but ATTITUDES can.

---

Quote:

---

I would say men conceiving against their consent virtually never happens! (as a result of rape)

---

Quote:

---

Maybe this is true when a person is completely intoxicated to the point of complete disorientation/passing out. But when a guy and girl get drunk in a bar and then hook up, have they raped each other?

---

Quote:

---

You think Alison would've succeed in court? I'm not an expert, but I have my doubts. Greer chose that anecdote because it illustrates how hard it is sometimes to convict rapists

---

Quote:

---

Do you disagree with Greer's reasoning that 'All he had to say to escape punishment was that he thought, or believed, that her silence was consent'?

---

Quote:

---

I think the problem of low rape convictions is more inherent to the nature of the crime

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

I was commenting on the over all paragraph... When Alison turned up for work the next day she was so pale and withdrawn that her workmates were worried. Eventually, one of them managed to find out what was wrong.j

And the idea that the ONLY conclusion for Alison's state was that she'd been raped, before any facts had been established.

But, troll away, and vilify anyone and everyone who dares to even suggest views which don't fall lock step into line w/ how you want folks to react.

---

Quote:

---

We need a Stand Your Vagina law. You try messing with a woman's privates, you will get hurt and possibly dead and the law won't be coming after her for it. That would solve the problem.

---

Quote:

---

How about a child tells you they are being abused - "Are you maybe lying?"

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:
AR - I read it differently than you, it would appear. I saw it as the women " knowing " what had happened, merely from the way she looked, acted. There could be all sorts of reasons a person looks distraught, pale and what not. Yes, being raped would be one of those, I don't deny. But it's not the ONLY reason. I just saw that line as being curious. Obviously, had she TOLD them she'd been attacked, then they'd know. Duh! If that's the case, that line is a complete throw away.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AURaptor:

Quote:

---

To all the women, it was obvious that Alison had not consented to sex.

---

Wow. Women DO have magical powers. Amazing.

---

It's pretty astonishing that out of everything in the article you would zero in on an opportunity to discredit the victim.

---

Quote:

---

Never heard of girls poking holes in condoms, hmm?

---

Quote:

---

Step away from your self-imposed gender guilt for a second

---

Quote:

---

Ugh, look. Frankly I think HORMONES makes the issue of consent questionable.

---

Quote:

---

It might not surprise you to know I think Knocked Up is the worst, most unethical and uncomfortable movie ever.

---

Quote:

---

SHE NEVER FILED CHARGES. OF COURSE THE GUY WOULDN'T GET CONVICTED.

---

Quote:

---

With better education, we could make it so defenses like that don't fly anywhere, ever.

---

Quote:

---

You don't stop a crime like rape by making it no longer a crime.

---

Quote:

---

this would allow rapists to hide what they did under the umbrella term of an assault conviction, and risk subjecting other people to that because they would not know the full extent of what they had done.

---

Quote:

---

That's not rape...

---

Quote:

---

And yes, of course men can be raped - but that's not the same as girls tricking them into pregnancy.

---

Quote:

---

That's interesting, but was a crime committed, in your view? Or, would you want to criminalise that behaviour?

---

Quote:

---

But if she had...? you're avoiding the question.

---

Quote:

---

Greer is making the point (and I agree with her) that it would be a VALID defence. The guy simply claims that the woman seemed into it to him. She didn't say no (that he heard).

---

Quote:

---

No one's suggesting that. The suggestion was to treat it within the bracket of assault crimes.

---

Quote:

---

One of my main quibbles:
I don't see her logic as sound. Lighter penalties for rape or sexual assault = lighter burden of proof? In what universe?

---

Quote:

---

She also strongly downplays the specifically sexual consequences of rape: disease and pregnancy being a HUGE worry for many victims. That there are worse things than "unwanted penis in vagina" (or, you know, whatever a female rapist would choose to do) is a given, but brushing off that form of assault as an inflated "phallocentric" preoccupation is just insulting.

---

Quote:

---

I don't see her approach as particularly helpful when the issue of social attitudes that enable rape isn't really addressed.

---

Quote:

---

I think one of the biggest enablers of rape (if not the biggest) is the low conviction rate, and the low reporting rate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
I think one of the biggest enablers of rape (if not the biggest) is the low conviction rate, and the low reporting rate. It makes men think they can/will get away with it. If many more men can get reported, and convicted, and then be forced to live with that stain (even if sometimes the punishments are not as tough) then this would massively alleviate the problem I feel.

---

Quote:

---

In reality, there are TONS of reasons a rape victim may file civil charges but not criminal ones. For one, the burden of proof is easier in a civil case. In a criminal one, even DNA evidence may not be enough to prove the accused did it “beyond a resonable doubt” if he’s claiming the sex was consensual. But in a civil case, the evidence need only prove that it’s more likely than not that the accused did the crime.

But burden of proof is only one reason among many. I asked the fantastic Jessie Mindlin and Lydia Watts of the Victim Rights Law Center (and my fellow CounterQuo founding members) about this issue, and they said that burden of proof is far from the most common reason victims choose civil suits over criminal ones.

While we don’t know this particular woman’s reasons, here are 10 good reasons Mindlin & Watts see all the time:

1) Different remedies are available in a civil case that cannot get in a criminal case. E.g., as a condition of settlement in a civil case, a victim can ask that the defendant go through mental health counseling, have to give a donation to a rape crisis center, agree not to stay in a hotel without a chaperone, etc. I’m not suggesting the victim in this case wants any of this, but rather that there is lots of room in a civil case to structure a resolution that feels relevant and promotes the victim’s healing. In contrast, at the end of the day, in a criminal case it is the state/the government against the defendant, and the victim is the state’s witness.

2) In a civil case, the victim can address more than just the perpetrator’s behavior. In a civil case, the victim can seek to hold certain third party defendants – e.g., her employer – liable for discriminatory behavior based on the employer’s failure/refusal to believe that she was raped.

3) Depending on the time of crime to be charged, the victim may be able to resolve civil case more speedily than criminal case. This issue is especially important for lower income victims (who, as we know, perpetrators often prey on because they are likely to be more vulnerable in various regards).

4) Different rules of evidence apply. E.g., In a criminal case the defendant can plead the 5th. If s/he pleads the 5th in a civil case, the jury is allowed to interpret the defendant’s refusal to testify against him or her.

5) Some defendants are more concerned about a criminal conviction than they are about civil settlement, and so may be more willing to admit wrongdoing (or settle case and agree to various conditions w/out admitting wrongdoing).

6) One gets to take depositions of the other side in a civil case, which can be a good vehicle for getting perpetrator to commit to certain facts. The defendant doesn’t ever have to take the stand in a criminal case, and certainly does not have to agree to be interviewed by lawyer on the other side (i.e.,the prosecutor).

7) In a civil case, the victim is a party to the case. The case is captioned VICTIM’S NAME v. ASSAILANT’S NAME. That is more than a figurative difference… when a party to the case, the victim has control over the direction and strategy of the case. Whether to proceed with some motion or action, what to ask for in terms of remedies, whether to settle, which witnesses to call, etc. are all decisions a party to a case gets to make, and the attorney representing that person/party has an ethical obligation to confer with and follow the desires of the client (as long as the desires/directives are legal). In a criminal case, it is STATE OF XXX (Or US in federal case and in DC) V. ASSAILANT. That shows the fact that the prosecutor literally represents the interests of the state/government to “right the wrong” created by the criminal act… that means jail or probation/parole as the way to right the wrong. Though there is often restitution allowed (and often others sorts of things CAN be ordered as conditions of release and/or as part of the sentence), that is not the main focus of the criminal case. In addition, the prosecutor DOES NOT represent the victim and so has a different set of ethical obligations that DO NOT include conferring with or doing what the victim thinks is best/wants.

8 ) Many victims have mixed feelings about employing a process that could send someone to jail, particularly if there is some pre-existing relationship, or the assailant is a person of color (many communities of color, rightfully indignant about the over-representation of men of color within the penal system in the US, do not want to be a party to that system).

9) The idea of civil suits is, in part, to “make whole” the person who is suing. Jail does nothing to rectify the harm inflicted on the victim. Certainly, in our society, money is one way to make a person whole – if I have to quit my job due to the trauma following a rape, I certainly have an identifiable dollar amount that I am out directly attributable to the rape, plus counseling expenses, plus loss of ability to earn in the future (maybe), then we get into punitive damages.

10) Some constitutional protections to criminal defendants, such as right to counsel, do not apply in a civil case. This means a criminal defendant will get an attorney, and if s/he cannot afford one, one will be appointed. This can be very daunting, particularly for an unrepresented victim (which is the case for the vast majority of victims in criminal cases, since the prosecutor does not represent the victim), who has no attorney and no actual (though prosecutors do more and more confer with victims, but are not required to) voice in the criminal proceeding.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
I'm beginning to think that rape is inherently hard to prosecute (not the kind where a man stalks a woman walking home late at night, and rapes her at knife-point - the rarer kind), because it's often not a case of whether sex took place, which science can establish, but whether that sex was consensual - which often comes down to the man's word against the woman's. If you're on the jury how can you justifiably convict the man in such a case? Isn't there often some, reasonable doubt? And even more so, when the woman was drunk? Can she remember if she gave consent or not, etc... Too often it seems, there is plausible deniability in rape cases.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by AgentRouka:
I really don't think conviction rates would be half as effective as a guy's buddies going "Yo, leave that drunk girl alone."/"Maybe turning you down DOESN'T mean she's stuck up."/"No, actually you CAN just masturbate if you don't get laid tonight."

If that sort of attitude was prevalent, I think you'd be looking at fewer rapes, because all those learned justifications for coercive behavior wouldn't be accepted anymore. I put my money on education.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FREMDFIRMA:
Anyways, it only really takes one guy to be there, stand up, and call this bullshit down when they see it happening, and if you don't see one...
Maybe ya oughta BE one.

-Frem

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Geezer:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
I'm beginning to think that rape is inherently hard to prosecute (not the kind where a man stalks a woman walking home late at night, and rapes her at knife-point - the rarer kind), because it's often not a case of whether sex took place, which science can establish, but whether that sex was consensual - which often comes down to the man's word against the woman's. If you're on the jury how can you justifiably convict the man in such a case? Isn't there often some, reasonable doubt? And even more so, when the woman was drunk? Can she remember if she gave consent or not, etc... Too often it seems, there is plausible deniability in rape cases.

---

The Illustrated Guide to Criminal Law has covered some of this, starting here:

http://lawcomic.net/guide/?p=1228


"When your heart breaks, you choose what to fill the cracks with. Love or hate. But hate won't ever heal. Only love can do that."

---

Quote:

---

Doesn't matter if one of them initated. Too drunk is too drunk, non-consent is assumed because the alcohol is impairing judgment.

---

Quote:

---

If both are drunk, like I said, it depends on if one presses charges and who appeals most to the jury

---

Quote:

---

. If someone initiates it seems to me they know what they are doing.

---

Quote:

---

having your judgment impaired is not the same as knowing what you are doing.

---

Quote:

---

can they both be guilty of rape, since rape is something done knowingly (as defined by the comic)?

---

Quote:

---

How about if they're so drunk they pass out after they "initiate?" Oh I guess they "initiated," that makes it okay then!

---

Quote:

---

Stickie McStickfigure can have gone to a bar and have merely a SIP of alcohol before she meets good ol' Jeff and goes up to his room and kisses him and then things got out of hand. If the next day she thinks "oh no, I don't think I was thinking straight" THEN THAT IS A RED FLAG. That could be sufficient to prompt a criminal investigation on the matter.

---

Quote:

---

And this is the point where I start to wonder if you aren't trolling us. There is no possible way that you CAN'T know this already. Someone, at some point in your life, had to pull you aside and say, "Son, don't molest drunk girls, even if it seems like they're giggling about it

---

Quote:

---

Have you much (any?) experience of drinking alcohol? Nothing wrong if you haven't, but it sounds like you don't.

---

Quote:

---

You're talking about wielding the full force of the law (a rape charge) upon very common, very popular human behaviour.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
But laws against bad behaviour have to be crafted carefully so that they don't penalise INNOCENT, non-immoral behaviour. At the moment you're saying anyone who meets someone in a bar and sleeps with them is committing rape, if any alcohol at all was involved. Or even a romantic dinner where wine was involved - rape! You're talking about wielding the full force of the law (a rape charge) upon very common, very popular human behaviour.

---

Quote:

---

Even so, I have read enough about alcohol and seen the results to know that...

---

Quote:

---

It can only be investigated and charged if it's reported.

---

Quote:

---

it's important for the law to be fairly inclusive instead of exclusive.

---

Quote:

---

I would suggest that you've misunderstood the mechanism of how alcohol works. It doesn't make people lose their mind, like some kind of hallucinogenic drug. It lowers inhibitions making people respond to their own urges , that they previously had under tight control. If a girl makes a move on a guy after a few drinks (or vice versa), and it leads to sex, that's down to her own urges (and maybe beer goggles as well).

---

Quote:

---

Ok so you're not interested in charging people for all the intoxicated sex out there, just in labelling them all as rapists, and rape-ees.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by kpo:
It lowers inhibitions, making people respond to their own urges, that they previously had under tight control. If a girl makes a move on a guy after a few drinks (or vice versa), and it leads to sex, that's down to her own urges (and maybe beer goggles as well).

---