It takes two to tango: personal responsibility in rape

[Mr Spock]

It means that I think that you think that I'm implying something that I'm actually not.

 

Sorry, I can't think of a way to say it that's less convoluded......

[shamen]

Originally posted by Mr Spock

And what does this prove Shamen? I'm not trying to say you provoked your own rape, but that's what you seem to be arguing against.

 

I think I get it now. That you think that I think that you could've avoided my rape. Which is exactly what you said. That you wouldn't have gotten in the car with the boy that you had been dating, who was your boyfriend; because you didn't intend to f*** him.

 

"Yes, yes, of course, you could've avoided my rape," said sarcastically. Lots of women, and men, think this. But it's OK, I understand why you think this; lots of people NEED to think this to live their lives.

 

Again, in rapesurvivor's other thread, part of this thinking still continues to put us right back to where we started. Blaming the victim. It's my fault that I got in the car with him. I know that you keep saying that it's not my fault that he raped me, but at the same time, you say that you wouldn't get in his car. So, I could've avoided the rape, right? When we stop saying this, then maybe the rapist would actually get convicted.

 

Believe me, only a hermit can avoid rape. The sheer act of going out on a date, to a bar, to the movies, to the park, to public places, makes you too a possible victim. Opening the door, visiting your friends, whatever...

[Fayebelle]

Originally posted by Mr Spock

The reason they make it illegal to f*ck retarded people in comas is because they'll sneak in there and do it if they don't.

 

So who- besides the law -helps them avoid their attackers? Anyone who raped the person described above would (hopefully) never stand a chance in court. The person who would do this is dangerous and should be treated as such.

 

I think anyone who attacks a person in a car (regardless of how they got there) should have no defense either. The person who would do this is dangerous and should be treated as such.

 

It's a very sad catch 22- until women feel they can trust society and the law to protect them- many feel the need to "protect" themselves... As long as society and the law think that women Can protect themselves- they will do less to protect others.

 

I just don't think women should have to live w/such a defensive mentality. The idea that there are preventitive measures leads to the mentality of attackers that they can find a "loophole" and get away.

[Mr Spock]

No Shamen, all I am doing is stating what I do to protect myself.

 

The knowledge that someone hurt you fills me with sadness.

[shamen]

Originally posted by Fayebelle

 

It's a very sad catch 22- until women feel they can trust society and the law to protect them- many feel the need to "protect" themselves... As long as society and the law think that women Can protect themselves- they will do less to protect others.

 

I just don't think women should have to live w/such a defensive mentality. The idea that there are preventitive measures leads to the mentality of attackers that they can find a "loophole" and get away.

 

Amen sister.

 

Spock, again, I know that you are stating what we do to protect ourselves. I still do many of them, but I also live my life with trust. See Fayebelle's comments above...

[Mr Spock]

Spock, again, I know that you are stating what we do to protect ourselves. I still do many of them, but I also live my life with trust.

 

What do you do that's different ? I still try and believe in the common decency of mankind.

 

Faybelle's outlook is idealistic-mine is not. This does not mean that I think that ANY of you could have avoided your own rape.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Fayebelle

In the future kindly refrain from putting words in my mouth.

When people use the phrase "don't put words in my mouth", they're referring to being quoted falsely. I didn't quote you falsely. I'm responding DIRECTLY to this statement, made by you:

 

"Anyone willing to give up a little bit of freedom for a little bit of security will lose both and deserves neither "

 

And, before that, when Spock merely stated that she makes WISE CHOICES TO PROTECT HERSELF, you said:

 

"That's the type of outlook that leads to the - she should have known All men want sex All the time- defense that gets men off in court. Totally unacceptable outlook to me."

 

In the future kindly refrain from levying false accusations against me. This isn't about you *defending* your outlook, it's about saying a woman who makes prudent choices (spock), understanding male sexuality, is somehow enabling rapists to get off in court. That's appalling, so shame on you--shame on you not for your outlook, but for censuring Spock's.

 

YES – THIS ATTITUDE / OUTLOOK is most definitely dangerous. If you have ever been in a courtroom for a rape trial and heard an attorney argue this point you might understand the attitude.

You're talking about one outlook, and I'm talking about another. If you're aware that rape is a possiblity, and so you make choices based on a knowledge of that possibility, you are NOT enabling rapists to get off in court. That's a totally baseless statement. Just because Fayebelle said it doesn't make it so.

[Fayebelle]

the beautiful thing about ideas is that they are open to interpretaion. You feel I manipulate your words- I feel you manipulate mine. You feel it unacaceptable to apply words you heard and found wise to any topic other than the one origional addressed- I do not.

 

Agree to Disagree on this one- it's not worth a headache.

[shamen]

Spock,

 

OK, I still get in cars alone with men (yes, how I got raped). I still go out alone on dates with men. I still open my front door to canvassers (non-profit people and people who work for political parties). I still go to my male friends' homes alone. I still go to my male friends' hotel rooms to hang out when they're in town, and let them come visit me when I'm in their town. Basically, I trust my friends and family. I trust my boyfriends' friends.

 

I do not leave the bar with someone I don't know. I do not walk around alone late at night (unless I'm returning home and have just parked my car). The super basics.

 

All I'm saying is that we have to LIVE our lives. I will not let my life be sheltered to the point that I shut myself off and assume that all my male friends want to f*** me. I visit a good friend of mine in NYC every year, who is male, and I stay at his house alone with him. I sleep on the couch. I TRUST him. I'm not going to let my experience, or the possible thought of a repeat experience, change this. I have other male friends that I visit alone and stay at their houses. I feel safe with them; maybe I shouldn't, but I do. These are guys that I've known since grad school 10 years ago.

 

But again, I will not live my life in fear.

 

Fayebelle's outlook may be idealistic, but it is true that, "As long as society and the law think that women can protect themselves, they will do less to protect others." Lawyers will keep arguing that a woman put herself in that position, so therefore it's her fault. Now maybe things have changed a little bit since Rapesurvivor's story, but I seriously doubt it. I know that a woman's sexual history used to be able to be used in the arguments of the defense, but I don't think so any more. I feel like I need to watch a court case on TV or something to see what lawyers are doing today. When I was raped in 1985, these things were definitely going on.

 

Has anyone seen or been to a court case to tell what kinds of defenses are being used now?

[RapeSurvivor]

quote: RapeSurvivor: So I'm asking for a clarification. Are you, or have you ever been, alone with someone of the opposite sex? Have you ever gone on a date and not had sex with the person? quote:I myself, would not have gone for a ride with him if I had not intended on sleeping with him. Do you meet your dates in public places and drive yourself there and back? Or do they pick you up and take you home? Or do they arrive with their parents or a chaperone so that you are not alone in the car with him?

 

 

Read above. And yes, I do drive myself on dates and drive myself home. I wouldn't date someone I wasn't sexually attracted to. What's your point, Rapesurvior? I certainly don't feel I'm restricting myself, or my life. I am terrified of heights-I don't go skydiving, I don't feel that I'm missing out. The majority of men I meet want to f*ck me, therefore I don't go to hotel rooms with the ones I wouldn't sleep with.

 

I made my last post to you before your other responses appeared. Because it has to go through a moderator’s approval, it didn’t show up in the thread until after you had already responded. I wasn’t ignoring your other answers.

 

My point is that you are saying, rather-- the way you are expressing yourself, comes across as you saying that if we (rape victims) lived our lives the way you do, we would not be raped, therefore your way of life is the best choice. It is still a somewhat demeaning attitude toward rape victims, IMO. Your life style is your choice and if you are happy that is all that matters, and it may all simply be the ways in which we express ourselves here in this thread that is not as clear and concise as we would like ourselves to be. That is why I asked for clarification—so that I can try to understand you better.

 

I need to be able to trust people and be alone with people. If I had not recovered enough to achieve the ability to trust again, I would never have dated again or got married. Others are perfectly fine and happy with their own forms of protection and relationships. At some point, though, if you meet someone and fall in love, you have to trust him or her. Husbands have been tried and convicted of raping their wives too, although that is a tricky situation. A person can have a healthy sex life with a partner and that partner can STILL rape the person. So, I guess my point Really is, is that even if you have sex with someone, they can still be a rapist and rape you.

 

The men you date or have a relationship with, how do you protect yourself from the possibility that one of them might rape you?

 

You said you wouldn’t date someone you were not sexually attracted to. But does that mean that you have sex with everyone you are sexually attracted to and date? I’m not judging you---I’m looking for clarifications on where you are coming from in your posts. I’m not sure how hotel rooms came into it---from some others posts along this thread--- but I did ask about if you had ever just gone on a date with someone and NOT had sex with them.

 

Shallow? No.

Shallow? What are you talking about? Did I call you shallow?

 

quote RapeSurvivor:

So, if your male friends know this about you and they find that they are alone with you, does that imply that you are planning to have sex with them?

 

 

This is rediculous.

 

I don’t think my question was ridiculous at all. I was and am asking for clarification of your statements. The only way I know how to do that is to ask questions, and rephrase them sometimes to elicit a response that will answer my question or help me to understand your answers. You said you would never be alone with someone you wouldn’t have sex with. This is what your statement led me to think (and to ask the question): Jane tells Johnny that she would never be alone with ANYONE she wasn’t going to have sex with, and sometime later Johnny and Jane are alone (he’s giving her a ride somewhere, or in any one of a million scenarios) and he remembers that, he could think “Ah! We are alone – she WILL have sex with me”

 

Yes, I see how the situation is ridiculous, which is why I am looking for more clarification of your statement about not being alone with someone.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by Fayebelle

the beautiful thing about ideas is that they are open to interpretaion. You feel I manipulate your words- I feel you manipulate mine.

The difference would be that I in no way manipulated what you said, and I think that if you're going to accuse me of something like that, you ought to back it up.

[shamen]

Originally posted by RapeSurvivor

 

I’m not sure where you made the connection between self-preservation and enabling a rapist, but let me tell you. In court (and are you an attorney? Can you present a rape case?) my rapist, his friends, and even my so-called friends, testified that we dressed provocatively, and because I voluntarily went out with him, I was at least partly responsible. The lawyer and the witnesses said that I SHOULD HAVE KNOWN ALL HE WANTED WAS SEX and THAT ATTITUDE freed a rapist.

 

Men can want sex without being rapists, can’t they? Men can make passes, or suggest sex, and take no for an answer, can’t they? Do you want girls to NEVER trust you completely because some other guy is a rapist? Do you want to be seen as a potential rapist, because other rapists got away with rape?

 

YES – THIS ATTITUDE / OUTLOOK is most definitely dangerous. If you have ever been in a courtroom for a rape trial and heard an attorney argue this point you might understand the attitude.

 

Dyer: Rapesurvivor's outlook is not baseless!!! She was in court over this matter and saw it happen in regards to her own rape. Maybe we need to be specific here...

 

I don't think that just because someone chooses to live their life trying to protect themselves causes people to get off in court. I think that the attitude that we CAN do something to protect ourselves gets people off in court. My interpretation (and also my own personal opinion that I believe to be true) of both Fayebelle's and Rapesurvivor's statements. Maybe I'm wrong about the interpretation...

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by shamen

Dyer: Rapesurvivor's outlook is not baseless!!! She was in court over this matter and saw it happen in regards to her own rape. Maybe we need to be specific here...

I was specific.

 

If you're aware that rape is a possiblity, and so you make choices based on a knowledge of that possibility, you are NOT enabling rapists to get off in court. That's a totally baseless statement. When Rapesurvivor's rapist got off in court, it was not because other women like Spock were making choices to protect themselves.

[Bobbie]

you know what was on lifetime when I switched channels last night? a film about a promiscuous woman who accused a man of rape and got torn to bits.

 

I was transported back to my mid-twenties, I'd just broken up with my first serious relationship after my first marriage break-up, my self-esteem and sexuality was in shreds.

 

On an impulse I flew to Spain, then my cousin's villa had been importunely rented out so I ended up travelling around on my own.

 

I met this older guy, he didn't speak much English or French ( which is unusual for the Spanish- most Spanish people I've met speak English, Spanish and French. I guess he wasn't well-educated )

 

We went to restaurants a couple of times and the third night I got roaring drunk.

I went back to his apartment and we started to have sex.

 

I guess I sobered up, and thought ****, no condom, what the hell am I doing etc.

 

I asked him to stop.

 

And he stopped, and we just hugged then slept for a few hours then went to get breakfast and he kissed me goodbye & I never saw him again.

 

I never realised until now how beautiful that was, how much it showed the best of human nature.

 

All men don't/ won't rape.

 

It's not a foregone conclusion that if you get in certain situations male aggression and animosity or sexuality will take over; I know three very special men over a long time and they would never take advantage neither of me nor anyone else. I'd bet my life on it, and one of them has in fact turned me down when I was 'vulnerable' and it didn't seem right.

 

Young men need to hear this.

 

Rape, domestic violence, football hooliganism, fighting, warmongering: it's all a personal choice.

Not an automatic play-out of an instinct.

 

There's still too much of a Freudian model of 'libido' energy pervades popular culture.

 

Life doesn't have to be like that.

 

Yes, I was lucky not to be raped or beaten or to pick up an STD that night, but what actually happened shows me that there's a choice that violent people make and other more aware people don't.

 

I'm still convinced greater awareness is the key.

 

( and time and again people keep writing here that rape is not about sex. Yes it is. Power, abuse, inadequacy, faulty thinking, minimising, rationalising, anger, acting-out and sex )

[Mr Spock]

The men you date or have a relationship with, how do you protect yourself from the possibility that one of them might rape you?

 

You said you wouldn’t date someone you were not sexually attracted to. But does that mean that you have sex with everyone you are sexually attracted to and date? I’m not judging you---I’m looking for clarifications on where you are coming from in your posts. I’m not sure how hotel rooms came into it---from some others posts along this thread--- but I did ask about if you had ever just gone on a date with someone and NOT had sex with them.

 

 

quote:Shallow? No.

 

Shallow? What are you talking about? Did I call you shallow?

 

I was referring to this

 

Taking steps to protect yourself and reduce risks is one thing, but it almost sounds as though you are hiding from life and only allowing yourself to experience a shallow existence of sexual encounters or sex-based relationships.

 

I won't date someone that I have no intention of sleeping with. And I can tell pretty quickly upon meeting someone new.

 

 

 

This is what your statement led me to think (and to ask the question): Jane tells Johnny that she would never be alone with ANYONE she wasn’t going to have sex with, and sometime later Johnny and Jane are alone (he’s giving her a ride somewhere, or in any one of a million scenarios) and he remembers that, he could think “Ah! We are alone – she WILL have sex with me”

 

This is what I find silly. Do I have to point out why?

[RapeSurvivor]

"That's the type of outlook that leads to the - she should have known All men want sex All the time- defense that gets men off in court. Totally unacceptable outlook to me."

 

In the future kindly refrain from levying false accusations against me. This isn't about you *defending* your outlook, it's about saying a woman who makes prudent choices (spock), understanding male sexuality, is somehow enabling rapists to get off in court. That's appalling, so shame on you--shame on you not for your outlook, but for censuring Spock's.

 

Yes. It IS Appalling! It is appalling that people who make prudent choices and don’t get raped are used AGAINST people who make prudent choices and DO get raped. IT DOES STILL HAPPEN IN COURT ROOMS TODAY! It is a very, very common defense.

 

quote: RapeSurvivor:

YES – THIS ATTITUDE / OUTLOOK is most definitely dangerous. If you have ever been in a courtroom for a rape trial and heard an attorney argue this point you might understand the attitude.

 

You're talking about one outlook, and I'm talking about another. If you're aware that rape is a possiblity, and so you make choices based on a knowledge of that possibility, you are NOT enabling rapists to get off in court. That's a totally baseless statement. Just because Fayebelle said it doesn't make it so.

 

I don't know how to explain this to you, other than use a demonstration. I'm apparently not making myself clear otherwise.

 

Scenario:

Johnny asks Jane for a date. She’s known Johnny for a while – he hangs out with friends and she sees him and talks to him when they are together. When Johnny asks her out on a date, she says yes. Why not? He’s a known quantity.

 

Jane and Johnny go out and have a nice time. Jane is not naive, and she would be disappointed if Johnny didn’t try something! Every other guy Jane has dated has made a pass. It’s expected and its exciting and flattering.

 

During the date Johnny rapes Jane.

 

Scenario 2:

Johnny asks Jane for a date. She’s known Johnny for a while – he hangs out with friends and she sees him and talks to him when they are together. When Johnny asks her out on a date, she pauses and thinks to herself: Johnny may be a rapist. I could go out with him and he might rape me. Jane now has several choices:

 

A. Yes, but she will drive herself and not be alone with him (no kissing or cuddling, or passion which most couples look forward to on a date)

 

B. Yes, take her chances because he is somewhat of a known quantity and there has never been a hint of a problem with him from any of their mutual friends

 

C. Say no

 

The most common choice is B. Even if someone thinks about the possibility of rape beforehand, its generally dismissed because they know the person and they still go out on the date.

 

This choice does come up in court and it does enable some rapists to be acquitted. Most of the time, however, the case is settled out of court with plea bargains because date-rape, or rape by someone with no prior history of rape, or by a family or friend, is lost or reduced because of this very attitude. Many victims chose not to go through with a court case BECAUSE of this outlook and attitude and how firmly the rapist is defended.

 

If you're aware that rape is a possiblity, and so you make choices based on a knowledge of that possibility

The only way this works, is if a person chooses Scenario 2, Option C. Don’t go out with him. Does your gf realize that every time she is alone with you, there is a possibility of rape? What should she choose? YOU know you won’t rape her, but the possibility exists.

 

These attitudes not only affect the rape victims (usually women) but also men who are not rapists, because some women will view them as potential rapists too and treat them accordingly.

 

BTW: I know my own mind and I don't follow Fayebelle (no offense Fayebelle) or anyone else here.

[shamen]

Originally posted by shamen

 

I don't think that just because someone chooses to live their life trying to protect themselves causes people to get off in court. I think that the attitude that we CAN do something to protect ourselves gets people off in court. My interpretation (and also my own personal opinion that I believe to be true) of both Fayebelle's and Rapesurvivor's statements. Maybe I'm wrong about the interpretation...

 

ARGH dyer! Are we even speaking the same language???

 

It's not the opinion that people who try to protect themselves causes rapists to get off in court. IT'S THE ATTITUDE THAT WE CAN DO SOMETHING TO PROTECT OURSELVES THAT GETS PEOPLE OFF IN COURT. We can't do something to protect ourselves REALLY, as I've mentioned time and time again. Does this clarify what I'm saying? I don't feel like we are on the same page at all.

 

Bobbie: Thank you for your post. It just goes to show that men should and can stop themselves if told,"No," or, "Stop," even in the middle of the act. Also, was the Lifetime show based on a true story? If so, did they say what year it took place?

 

Does anyone know what's going on now in the courts?

 

EDIT: This was posted before I saw Rapesurvivor's post. I hope that my post and hers help you, dyer, to understand what we are saying, even if we are giving different opinions.

[dyermaker]

Originally posted by RapeSurvivor

Yes. It IS Appalling! It is appalling that people who make prudent choices and don’t get raped are used AGAINST people who make prudent choices and DO get raped. IT DOES STILL HAPPEN IN COURT ROOMS TODAY! It is a very, very common defense.

So what's your solution? Stop telling women to make prudent choices?

 

Here's what happened as I see it, correct me if I'm wrong:

 

Spock : I make prudent choices because I know rape is a possibility.

 

Fayebelle : That outlook is totally unacceptable, and that's the reason rapists get off in court.

 

I never said that your rape was preventable, or that everyone who makes wise choices will avoid rape. However, rape IS a possibility. If someone decides to take personal measures to minimize that risk, they are NOT enabling men to rape people and get away with it. They're just not.

 

Originally posted by shamen

ARGH dyer! Are we even speaking the same language???

No, evidently not.

 

My point is that a woman who attempts to protect herself from rape isn't enabling rapists to get off in court.

 

I never claimed that there are surefire ways to protect yourself, nor did I attempt to hold victims culpable for their victimization.

 

Let's say that "not leaving your drink out at a bar" minimizes risk. If a woman takes special care not to leave her drink out at a bar, she's not enabling rapists to get off in court. She's taking measures to protect herself--NOT because victims are responsible for their victimization, but because she's making prudent choices. Inequities in court are the fault of the judicial system, not women who are minimizing the risk of rape by dealing with a REALITY.

 

You're both trying to make your points using me, pretending I'm stating something I'm not. Don't. Your points are heard loud and clear, and they were echoed in the link that I read over and provided.

[Bobbie]

Has anyone seen or been to a court case to tell what kinds of defenses are being used now?....Does anyone know what's going on now in the courts?

 

I left my profession eight years ago( in the UK) but what was definitely happening more and more then was plea-bargaining.

 

ie. the defendent would plead guilty to a lesser charge, say assault or a.b.h rather than rape in exchange for a lesser sentence

 

( in the UK rape carries a maximum life penalty, but that doesn't mean the same as here: life would mean probably @ 10 years in prison, half-off for 'good behaviour in prison'.

 

But lifers are subject to parole life-licence, ie, they can have their parole revoked at any time should they break the law or a law officer feel they are a risk to society )

 

It's a way of clearing the court backlog, and seen as a sort-of justice-being-done-and-being-seen-to-be-done...but of course many victims feel cheated out of their day in court and the real truth of the matter.

 

If you were raped, there's no admission or reparation if the guy gets a conviction for assault ( I think you call it battery here ) instead.

 

In fact I'm certain many plea-bargains were just signatures to clear up crimes for people who knew they were going to prison anyway and wanted to reduce their sentences, they'd be presented with a list of crimes/ confessions and sign to them...and that way it eased the court back-log and increased police crime-clearance rates ( which also became very important in the public service cost-effectivity drives of the 80s and 90s )

 

Justice is, after all, just a concept.

 

I'd like to think things are changing with better understanding and education.... Any current lawyers/ social workers/ probation officers can say?

[RapeSurvivor]

I won't date someone that I have no intention of sleeping with. And I can tell pretty quickly upon meeting someone new.

 

So, anyone you date - you intend to have sex with. Now I understand where you are coming from.

 

quote:This is what your statement led me to think (and to ask the question): Jane tells Johnny that she would never be alone with ANYONE she wasn’t going to have sex with, and sometime later Johnny and Jane are alone (he’s giving her a ride somewhere, or in any one of a million scenarios) and he remembers that, he could think “Ah! We are alone – she WILL have sex with me”

 

 

This is what I find silly. Do I have to point out why?

 

I guess you didn't understand what I said when I replied to this before. I won't bother to try to point that out to you again. Maybe if you just re-read my original response.

[shamen]

Dyer:

 

So, as you see, I have also stated that I don't think that women who try to protect themselves cause rapists to be let off in court. We agree on this.

 

It's the attitude that you can protect yourself that gets people off in court. Care to comment on this part of it?

 

PS... Your list of events is not what I think happened. Here's my version... Anything in parentheses is my interpretation.

 

Spock: I just assume that all men want to have sex all of the time, so I take precautions.

 

Fayebelle: It's this attitude that enables men to get off in court. The - she should have known better because all men want to have sex all of the time - defense. (Not that women try to protect themselves, my opinion. She didn't say that taking precautions was the defense.)

 

Rapesurvivor: It was this attitude that, "I should have known better than to get in the car with him because all men want sex all of the time," that got my rapist off.

 

Dyer: It is not the attitude that women want to protect themselves that gets men off in court. (What I feel to be a misinterpretation of what was said. This is the crux of the whole debate.)

 

Ah, the joys of the printed word.

[RapeSurvivor]

Originally posted by dyermaker

So what's your solution? Stop telling women to make prudent choices? [color=red]No. Stop USING one woman's choice AGAINST another in a legal battle. That is the solution.[/color]

 

Here's what happened as I see it, correct me if I'm wrong:

 

Spock : I make prudent choices because I know rape is a possibility.

 

Fayebelle : That outlook is totally unacceptable, and that's the reason rapists get off in court.

Go back and look at the OUTLOOK to which Fayebelle is referring:

 

quote:Originally posted by Mr Spock

However, I'm saying that I wouldn't GO to the room because to me, all men want sex. All of the time. And if I didn't want to have it, I'd just stay in the restaraunt.

 

That's the type of outlook that leads to the - she should have known All men want sex All the time- defense that gets men off in court. Totally unacceptable outlook to me. I have male friends I've known for years- Do they Ever want sex from me? Who the hell cares- they aren't getting it willingly- they know that , I know that, and if they force the issue -it's RAPE.

 

[color=darkblue]Defense attorney: Jane wasn't raped because she chose to protect herself by not being alone with Johnny because she knew that a possibility of rape existed. This translates into: You were not raped because you did choose to be alone with Johnny knowing that a possibility of rape existed. Johnny is not at fault. You are. [/color] --- This is the basics in such a court case, and why so many rapes do not go to trial---the victim (or his/her family) does not want the victim to be questioned on the stand, and have to go through all of that crap.

 

I never said that your rape was preventable, or that everyone who makes wise choices will avoid rape. However, rape IS a possibility. If someone decides to take personal measures to minimize that risk, they are NOT enabling men to rape people and get away with it. They're just not.

 

I understand that. And I (most or all of us here) will agree that rape IS a possibility in many situations. A person taking measures to protect her/himself is NOT individually enabling a rapist to reach aquittal---but the ATTITUDE that a person presents is what the attorneys pounce on.

 

My point is that a woman who attempts to protect herself from rape isn't enabling rapists to get off in court.

 

However, a woman who testifies in court that she was not raped BECAUSE she didn't get into a car with a possible rapist will put in the minds of the jury (with help from the defendants attorney) that the rape victim should have avoided the rape the same way, and because the victim did not do so, they are also responsible for the rape. THIS is how rapists get reduced sentences or aquittals. I know. I've seen it.

 

I never claimed that there are surefire ways to protect yourself, nor did I attempt to hold victims culpable for their victimization.

I never said you did. You posted a link earlier with some good information in it.

[dyermaker]

Shamen, do you not remember this:

If we all go around assuming that all men want to have sex all the time, then we are sort of just excusing their behavior.

That's the crux of my disagreement. If a woman tries to protect herself she doesn't excuse rape.

[dyermaker]

However, a woman who testifies in court that she was not raped BECAUSE she didn't get into a car with her rapist will put in the minds of the jury (with help from the defendants attorney) that the rape victim should have avoided the rape the same way, and because the victim did not do so, they are also responsible for the rape. THIS is how rapists get reduced sentences or aquittals. I know. I've seen it.

What kind of woman would testify that she wasn't raped at someone else's rape trial? On what grounds would her testimony be admitted at a rape trial that she has nothing to do with? How is that relevant?

 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding you, but I don't see how a disinterested party's personal experience would be admitted as evidence--do you have any links to court cases where this has been used?

[shamen]

Dyer:

 

Originally posted by shamen

 

IIf we all go around assuming that all men want to have sex all the time, then we are sort of just excusing their behavior. "Oh, they can't help it, they think with their d***s. Oh, she came to my house. She got in my car. I went to her house and she was dressed in her pajamas. It's her fault." I think that this is what Fayebelle is trying to say, that it's the thinking that all men want to have sex all the time that is part of the reason that so many men get off (no pun intended) in court. It's a societal belief, so somehow we can excuse it.

 

Which again, is where we started, with Capitald's post. Why we are all here in the first place, debating a societal belief that people still hold, as scary as that may be, that somehow rape is the woman's fault. Because she went home, because she got in her car with her husband's friend/ex bf/bf/husband/relative/insert someone here, because she went to her boyfriend's house, because she went to work, because she lived her life.

 

Again, you keep taking it out of context. It goes along with the sentence immediately afterwards, not alone. Maybe I should have put a colon after that sentence, rather than a period. Sorry.

 

Another quote from me to try to explain the previous statement to you:

 

"It's all connected. It wasn't just that all men think about sex all of the time. Yes, I've heard the statistics. [...]

 

What I was trying to say was that because we think (or know) this, we (as a society) excuse the act of rape because 'they were titillated and they can't help it,' which is not what rape is really about... Again, from your link, it's about power."

 

We excuse the rape as a society because women titillate men and men can't help it because they think about sex all of the time. All one sentence. Not that this is right way to look at things. It is oh so wrong.

 

How does this relate to, "If a woman tries to protect herself, it doesn't excuse rape."? I don't even get what you're trying to say.

 

Again, it's the attitude that a woman can avoid rape which enables men to get off in court. Any comment on the attitude that women can avoid rape enabling men to get off in court?