Was I raped???
Scroll to see replies
Original post by unprinted
1. Sober, drunk or high, you still need a reasonable belief in consent before sticking your penis in someone. 'I was too drunk to care' doesn't count.
2. WTFF?
2. WTFF?
Actually, if both parties are drunk, neither are able to consent.
Yes, because if the alleged rapist actually raped her, and noticed her discomfort the whole time (he noticed and stopped to ask if she is ok), his intentions wouldnt be to let her go easily knowing she know where he lives.
You can't state that men are raped more than women like fact when you yourself acknowledge under reporting. The truth is we don't know exact numbers for either gender regardless of the perpetrators gender.
In terms of risk of murder, that's more of a risk when the rapist thinks they will be caught or that the victim will escape. A would be rapist only has to read a few comments on here, for example, to realise that if they prey on drunk women it's their victims who will have their character assignated not them. Reporting levels are lower due to this making it safer for rapists to continue. So no need to murder their victim to protect themselves.
Fighting back against a rapist incites more violence and can result in death. But you know, lucky you you *might* be taken seriously as a victim of rape.
I fought back on one occasion, had the consciousness choked out of me and still blamed for being drunk. So go figure. Basically it suits society more to believe that rapists don't exist.
In terms of risk of murder, that's more of a risk when the rapist thinks they will be caught or that the victim will escape. A would be rapist only has to read a few comments on here, for example, to realise that if they prey on drunk women it's their victims who will have their character assignated not them. Reporting levels are lower due to this making it safer for rapists to continue. So no need to murder their victim to protect themselves.
Fighting back against a rapist incites more violence and can result in death. But you know, lucky you you *might* be taken seriously as a victim of rape.
I fought back on one occasion, had the consciousness choked out of me and still blamed for being drunk. So go figure. Basically it suits society more to believe that rapists don't exist.
Original post by unprinted
(Re going to Brixton)
Just as some of the posters here have fortunately never been in a situation where some man was going to stick his penis in them regardless of what they thought about it and never expect to do so, clearly some have never been to Brixton (and never expect to do so!)
It was about forty minutes away at the end of a bus route from where I used to live in London and I've never had a problem with my personal safety there on numerous visits.
I am old enough that one of those was for a Pride meeting in the late 90s. (Several LGBT organisations were/are housed in a business centre there.) When I arrived, there was a demonstration nearby about the death of someone in police custody. By the time the meeting finished, a riot had just kicked off - the department store had been broken into, there was smoke coming out of the station etc - and all the local public transport was closed or diverted.
The rioters were vastly more helpful and useful in terms of directing me, a white and (thanks to a t-shirt) visibly bisexual person, so I could get safely home than any of the police standing around watching were...
Just as some of the posters here have fortunately never been in a situation where some man was going to stick his penis in them regardless of what they thought about it and never expect to do so, clearly some have never been to Brixton (and never expect to do so!)
It was about forty minutes away at the end of a bus route from where I used to live in London and I've never had a problem with my personal safety there on numerous visits.
I am old enough that one of those was for a Pride meeting in the late 90s. (Several LGBT organisations were/are housed in a business centre there.) When I arrived, there was a demonstration nearby about the death of someone in police custody. By the time the meeting finished, a riot had just kicked off - the department store had been broken into, there was smoke coming out of the station etc - and all the local public transport was closed or diverted.
The rioters were vastly more helpful and useful in terms of directing me, a white and (thanks to a t-shirt) visibly bisexual person, so I could get safely home than any of the police standing around watching were...
Yeah, I didn't mean to pick on Brixton, it's just the whole of the UK has a fairly low murder rate, but London's the highest, and I wanted to pick one of the shadier areas. I've been a few times, I've been in far dodgier individual situations, but at the same time, it's the only place I've been where there's been armed police on every street corner on a normal day.
Original post by unprinted
Yep, all of us can only go on what's been presented.
Nice try, even if I very much doubt some of it is justified.
As I said, I'd love to hear his version, and I'd bet it's closer to mine than yours.
Nice try, even if I very much doubt some of it is justified.
As I said, I'd love to hear his version, and I'd bet it's closer to mine than yours.
Maybe, maybe not. Either way, do you not agree that with the information presented, and only that, there's currently a reasonable doubt existing for the night sex?
Original post by ripjonsnow
Yes, because if the alleged rapist actually raped her, and noticed her discomfort the whole time (he noticed and stopped to ask if she is ok), his intentions wouldnt be to let her go easily knowing she know where he lives.
The disconnect with reality is so enormous - and I'm not just talking about believing the Daily Mail is in any way a reliable source - that I am not sure that I can do it justice, but here goes...
OK, you've got this drunk young woman you've only just met on the bus back to your place (knowing that she didn't want to go there, but hey, she shouldn't have drunk so much, right?) Obviously having done so, she's up for being ****ed at least four times (or why else would she be there, right?) The next morning, while ****ing her for the fourth or so time - you stud muffin! - you are distracted enough by her crying to pause until she STFU. Hmm, perhaps she did mean it when she repeatedly said she didn't want you to stick your penis in her...
After you've finished do you a) finally let her go or b) kill her?
If you let her go, she probably won't report it to the police. She may not be able to remember it, for example, or blame herself if she does. If she does report it, there were people who saw you get off the bus with her having talked, and that's good. Similarly there are no witnesses to her saying 'no' a lot - one reason you went back to yours, as you don't know who was at her place - so you can say it was all consensual. Even if the police don't believe you, you know that there's a significant chance it'll never get to court and a good chance that you won't be convicted if it does. Even if you were found guilty, you're looking at five or so years, so two and a half inside.
If you kill her, she certainly won't go to the police, but that's where the pluses stop. For one thing, you've now got a body to dispose of, and that's a very tricky thing to do. Even if you manage it, her friends will report her missing. Those witnesses and probable CCTV on the bus now become a huge problem: you were the last person seen with her. There will be evidence from her mobile that she was there and how are you going to be sure you've cleaned your place completely? When you're interviewed by police, you can say 'She left and I haven't seen her since' but you'd have to be pretty stupid to think that would work. When you're found guilty - the conviction rate is far, far higher for murder than rape - you'll get a mandatory life sentence and probably serve at least a decade inside.
.. and killing her is supposed to be the smart choice?!?
If we pretend for a second that it's not a completely bonkers idea, the number of murders in the UK is tiny compared to the number of rapes and it will have been obvious to many of the rapists that the victims did not consent. Even rapists think you're completely wrong.
Don't expect me to make any positive response to your posts until you're on the same planet as the rest of us.
Original post by JoeTSR
do you not agree that with the information presented, and only that, there's currently a reasonable doubt existing for the night sex?
The day sex is, as presented, rape, isn't it?
Given that, unless it's a moron like George 'if a woman consents to sex at night, it means she consents to sex in the morning' Galloway, it makes it more likely that the night sex was too, but from the start, I've said it would depend on what he says when interviewed. Given that the OP isn't entirely sure what happened in the night, it's obviously not possible to say for certain.
Original post by unprinted
No, I'm blaming him for his actions, not her for his.
Rashōmon is an example of the way that we can never know the whole truth about what happened from one person, but I completely fail to see how anyone could say from what's been presented that she 'clearly consented'.
Let's repeat it once more: "He wanted to do it 'again' in the morning but I kept refusing but he still tried ... He didn't ask me for permission, he'd just stop for a bit if I started crying or stopped saying anything."
And the peer-reviewed evidence for that is...?
Given there are about nine times more men interested in sex with women than are interested in sex with other men, it would be extremely surprising.
True, but even in anonymous surveys like the British Crime Survey, it simply doesn't show anything like a similar frequency. Ditto the numbers in the (anonymous) Gay Men's Sex Surveys when they've asked about coerced sex.
Stop digging.
Rashōmon is an example of the way that we can never know the whole truth about what happened from one person, but I completely fail to see how anyone could say from what's been presented that she 'clearly consented'.
Let's repeat it once more: "He wanted to do it 'again' in the morning but I kept refusing but he still tried ... He didn't ask me for permission, he'd just stop for a bit if I started crying or stopped saying anything."
And the peer-reviewed evidence for that is...?
Given there are about nine times more men interested in sex with women than are interested in sex with other men, it would be extremely surprising.
True, but even in anonymous surveys like the British Crime Survey, it simply doesn't show anything like a similar frequency. Ditto the numbers in the (anonymous) Gay Men's Sex Surveys when they've asked about coerced sex.
Stop digging.
Both are to blame for being irresponsible for their own actions.
Your argument is invalid.
Imbecile.
Original post by unprinted
The day sex is, as presented, rape, isn't it?
Given that, unless it's a moron like George 'if a woman consents to sex at night, it means she consents to sex in the morning' Galloway, it makes it more likely that the night sex was too, but from the start, I've said it would depend on what he says when interviewed. Given that the OP isn't entirely sure what happened in the night, it's obviously not possible to say for certain.
Given that, unless it's a moron like George 'if a woman consents to sex at night, it means she consents to sex in the morning' Galloway, it makes it more likely that the night sex was too, but from the start, I've said it would depend on what he says when interviewed. Given that the OP isn't entirely sure what happened in the night, it's obviously not possible to say for certain.
The day sex is another one that's quite tricky, though at least the alcohol is taken out of the equation.
Obviously, consent the night before doesn't equal consent in the morning alone. However, Tara hasn't responded to my post asking whether persistance crosses past the threshold of unpleasantness into rape/sexual assault. I'd be open to seeing any legislation/case law that says it is, but as far as I can tell so far, rape by coercion seems to require some clear implication or threat of force or violence. The OP says "He wasn't like violent" which eliminates the physical violence point (as in beating her etc, not that I'm discounting that sex itself can be a violent act) leaving just the threat of force.
That relies on the interpretation of "I kept refusing but he still tried". What does the OP mean by trying? Was this simply asking over and over again, before she finally said "Ok, put on a condom"? Or was it that he got on top of her, pulled his pants down, and she said "please at least use a condom"? The former wouldn't be rape, as far as I can tell, though obviously the latter would.
Original post by ripjonsnow
A simple google search would take you to these reports:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html
I know the daily mail is not as reliable as some, but if you type in "men raped more than women" in google, its all over the first point.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html
I know the daily mail is not as reliable as some, but if you type in "men raped more than women" in google, its all over the first point.
I know I'm being optimistic, but I'd expect even a Daily Mail reader to get to the end of the headline: that story is about rape (and other sexual assault) in US prisons.
Only an idiot would think that anything else would be the case given a) the relative numbers of men and women in US prisons, b) the fact that the male prisoners are locked up with other men, some of whom will have been already convicted of rape and other sexual offences, c) the level of situational bisexuality in prison, including the macho idea that it doesn't count if you're the one doing the penetrating, d) the level of official interest in reducing it (if you ever manage to get a bit further into the story, you'll see this was a decade after a long overdue law aimed at eliminating prison rape was passed, but utterly basic fail was still happening), e) etc etc etc.
Original post by unprinted
I know I'm being optimistic, but I'd expect even a Daily Mail reader to get to the end of the headline: that story is about rape (and other sexual assault) in US prisons.
Only an idiot would think that anything else would be the case given a) the relative numbers of men and women in US prisons, b) the fact that the male prisoners are locked up with other men, some of whom will have been already convicted of rape and other sexual offences, c) the level of situational bisexuality in prison, including the macho idea that it doesn't count if you're the one doing the penetrating, d) the level of official interest in reducing it (if you ever manage to get a bit further into the story, you'll see this was a decade after a long overdue law aimed at eliminating prison rape was passed, but utterly basic fail was still happening), e) etc etc etc.
Only an idiot would think that anything else would be the case given a) the relative numbers of men and women in US prisons, b) the fact that the male prisoners are locked up with other men, some of whom will have been already convicted of rape and other sexual offences, c) the level of situational bisexuality in prison, including the macho idea that it doesn't count if you're the one doing the penetrating, d) the level of official interest in reducing it (if you ever manage to get a bit further into the story, you'll see this was a decade after a long overdue law aimed at eliminating prison rape was passed, but utterly basic fail was still happening), e) etc etc etc.
Im not sure if you are trolling, or just plain stupid, but you seem to be pretty steady that I used daily mail.
Did you...I dunno, perhaps read the line under the link?
"I know the daily mail is not as reliable as some, but if you type in "men raped more than women" in google, its all over the first point."
My mistake, point was to be corrected as page, but im sure any educated person would have guessed that.
EVERYTHING you have said has been invalid, because you failed to back up your posts by reports or studys, other than that one biased website.
Im doing you a favour and correcting that 1 spelling error I made and requoting my post, hopefully you will start looking at studies and evidence instead of your own mythical belief.
Original post by ripjonsnow
1. Assuming you know everything about this alleged rapist and his intention?
2. A simple google search would take you to these reports:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html
I know the daily mail is not as reliable as some, but if you type in "men raped more than women" in google, its all over the first page.
3. Where is your evidence? This is actually a myth. all you have done is stated your opinion along with presenting biased unreliable websites, without linking or showing me where to find the "credible" information you are saying.
So here are some reports to support what I am saying, these reports have links to actual studies.
http://mic.com/articles/125260/science-proves-that-women-want-sex-just-as-much-as-men-do#.0H6dXjDQJ
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/turns-out-women-have-really-really-strong-sex-drives-can-men-handle-it/276598/
4.You are assuming male rape only occurs male>male, its fairly common for a women to rape a male, but the male cannot speak out as much as a female can, because as I said, this is due to society.
Iv been stating this for a while, but I feel you keep arguing your dead point because I failed to provide evidence to support my point, so to help you open your eyes, so again, here is a report to backup my point:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/16/male-sexual-assault-and-rape-survivors-_n_8575150.html
ALSO. unlike the website you provided, this website is a non-biased site, you can tell this by going to the home page and see the lack of focusing on one gender:
https://rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/male-sexual-assault
5. Digging at what? You failed to provide any kind of support or evidence to back up your points. Pretty much everything you have said can be seen as opinion based, due to lack of support and evidence.
2. A simple google search would take you to these reports:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html
I know the daily mail is not as reliable as some, but if you type in "men raped more than women" in google, its all over the first page.
3. Where is your evidence? This is actually a myth. all you have done is stated your opinion along with presenting biased unreliable websites, without linking or showing me where to find the "credible" information you are saying.
So here are some reports to support what I am saying, these reports have links to actual studies.
http://mic.com/articles/125260/science-proves-that-women-want-sex-just-as-much-as-men-do#.0H6dXjDQJ
http://www.theatlantic.com/sexes/archive/2013/06/turns-out-women-have-really-really-strong-sex-drives-can-men-handle-it/276598/
4.You are assuming male rape only occurs male>male, its fairly common for a women to rape a male, but the male cannot speak out as much as a female can, because as I said, this is due to society.
Iv been stating this for a while, but I feel you keep arguing your dead point because I failed to provide evidence to support my point, so to help you open your eyes, so again, here is a report to backup my point:
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2015/11/16/male-sexual-assault-and-rape-survivors-_n_8575150.html
ALSO. unlike the website you provided, this website is a non-biased site, you can tell this by going to the home page and see the lack of focusing on one gender:
https://rainn.org/get-information/types-of-sexual-assault/male-sexual-assault
5. Digging at what? You failed to provide any kind of support or evidence to back up your points. Pretty much everything you have said can be seen as opinion based, due to lack of support and evidence.
Thanks, have a nice day
Original post by Anonymous
Both are to blame for being irresponsible for their own actions.
Yep, given that she was drinking, she would have been better to have done so with some real friends, not people who stick her on a bus without anyone reliable going with her.
But that doesn't mean she's responsible for being raped: that's totally down to the man who decided to stick his penis in her.
Imbecile.
Coward, as well as a rape apologist?
Original post by unprinted
I know I'm being optimistic, but I'd expect even a Daily Mail reader to get to the end of the headline: that story is about rape (and other sexual assault) in US prisons.
Only an idiot would think that anything else would be the case given a) the relative numbers of men and women in US prisons, b) the fact that the male prisoners are locked up with other men, some of whom will have been already convicted of rape and other sexual offences, c) the level of situational bisexuality in prison, including the macho idea that it doesn't count if you're the one doing the penetrating, d) the level of official interest in reducing it (if you ever manage to get a bit further into the story, you'll see this was a decade after a long overdue law aimed at eliminating prison rape was passed, but utterly basic fail was still happening), e) etc etc etc.
Only an idiot would think that anything else would be the case given a) the relative numbers of men and women in US prisons, b) the fact that the male prisoners are locked up with other men, some of whom will have been already convicted of rape and other sexual offences, c) the level of situational bisexuality in prison, including the macho idea that it doesn't count if you're the one doing the penetrating, d) the level of official interest in reducing it (if you ever manage to get a bit further into the story, you'll see this was a decade after a long overdue law aimed at eliminating prison rape was passed, but utterly basic fail was still happening), e) etc etc etc.
You wanted facts, i gave it to you.
Men are more likely to get raped in the US than women.
If you dont like the daily mail, just google "men raped more than women US", the page is filled with results, with some more credible sources.
I chose daily mail to test how stupidily you will jump on "DAILY MAIL IS NOT A RELIABLE SOURCE" without digging for further research.
Need some tissues for those tears?
Original post by unprinted
Yep, given that she was drinking, she would have been better to have done so with some real friends, not people who stick her on a bus without anyone reliable going with her.
But that doesn't mean she's responsible for being raped: that's totally down to the man who decided to stick his penis in her.
Rubbish.
Coward, as well as a rape apologist?
But that doesn't mean she's responsible for being raped: that's totally down to the man who decided to stick his penis in her.
Rubbish.
Coward, as well as a rape apologist?
According to my records, it says that you are indeed an imbecile.
Original post by unprinted
Yep, given that she was drinking, she would have been better to have done so with some real friends, not people who stick her on a bus without anyone reliable going with her.
But that doesn't mean she's responsible for being raped: that's totally down to the man who decided to stick his penis in her.
Coward, as well as a rape apologist?
But that doesn't mean she's responsible for being raped: that's totally down to the man who decided to stick his penis in her.
Coward, as well as a rape apologist?
Just ignore him. I stopped back on page 7 when he first said she that if she was raped, it was her fault for drinking. His views are so out of touch, I don't think you'll ever reach an amicable conclusion.
Edit:
Original post by Dalek1099
A lot of people are getting things wrong on here being drunk doesn't mean you can't consent(if it could would the majority of young sex today be rape?), you must be sufficiently intoxicated that you couldn't consent- this will often have to be backed up by evidence.You told him to put a condom on no judge will take any claim you were unable to consent seriously.People like you are often to blame for false rape accusations just because you are unhappy you decided to have sex doesn't make it rape or because you may be labelled by some people as a slut or whore for such actions.
Read back. I've posted an NHS link to the definition of capacity twice, let's try a third time.
http://www.nhs.uk/Conditions/Consent-to-treatment/Pages/Capacity.aspx
Someone with such an impairment is thought to be unable to make a decision if they cannot:
understand information about the decision
remember that information
use that information to make a decision
communicate their decision by talking, using sign language or by any other means
Telling him to use a condom doesn't necessarily verify capacity.
(edited 8 years ago)
Original post by unprinted
Yep, given that she was drinking, she would have been better to have done so with some real friends, not people who stick her on a bus without anyone reliable going with her.
But that doesn't mean she's responsible for being raped: that's totally down to the man who decided to stick his penis in her.
Coward, as well as a rape apologist?
But that doesn't mean she's responsible for being raped: that's totally down to the man who decided to stick his penis in her.
Coward, as well as a rape apologist?
Complete rubbish.
Stop defending something that you can't get.
There is no distinction in law that the coercion has to include threat of violence or even force.
Cps document on sentencing: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s3_sexual_assault/
The definition of rape: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape/section/1
You can't reasonably believe you have consent if you're having to coerce or persuade it. Because the very act of persuading or coercing means you acknowledge you're trying to change the answer you've been given.
Coercion also encompasses the threat to loss of love/attention/a privilege/basic needs such as sleeping or eating.
You can avoid the worry of overstepping the mark by simply taking someone at their word. If their no actually meant yes then it would be on them to make that clear - and to stop saying one thing and meaning another. Rather than taking the default and incorrect position that people either don't know their own mind or seek to play games.
Cps document on sentencing: http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/s_to_u/sentencing_manual/s3_sexual_assault/
The definition of rape: http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/42/part/1/crossheading/rape/section/1
You can't reasonably believe you have consent if you're having to coerce or persuade it. Because the very act of persuading or coercing means you acknowledge you're trying to change the answer you've been given.
Coercion also encompasses the threat to loss of love/attention/a privilege/basic needs such as sleeping or eating.
You can avoid the worry of overstepping the mark by simply taking someone at their word. If their no actually meant yes then it would be on them to make that clear - and to stop saying one thing and meaning another. Rather than taking the default and incorrect position that people either don't know their own mind or seek to play games.
Original post by Anonymous
Complete rubbish.
Stop defending something that you can't get.
Stop defending something that you can't get.
Ignorant people will always be ignorant, despite the presented facts.
Original post by apronedsamurai
Ok.
Did you consent to the activity?
If yes = not rape.
If no = rape.
Now, you do realise that you could NOT give consent due to your intoxication, i.e. you were incapitated by the alcohol. Legally then, you were raped.
Did you consent to the activity?
If yes = not rape.
If no = rape.
Now, you do realise that you could NOT give consent due to your intoxication, i.e. you were incapitated by the alcohol. Legally then, you were raped.
That's not the law at all.
Original post by ripjonsnow
Ignorant people will always be ignorant, despite the presented facts.
Agreed.
So many of them want to be "heroes".
Original post by Anonymous
Agreed.
So many of them want to be "heroes".
So many of them want to be "heroes".
*White Knights
Original post by ripjonsnow
Im not sure if you are trolling, or just plain stupid, but you seem to be pretty steady that I used daily mail.
..
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html
..
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449454/More-men-raped-US-women-including-prison-sexual-abuse.html
Yep, I'm sure you used the Daily Mail.
Looking at the Google search you're determined I do...
1. That Daily Mail story.
2. "So it's not clear that there are actually more rapes of men than women" from The Guardian
3. WP article. Samples: "rape affects women disproportionately", cites CDC study (see #5)
4. Quora, random answers
5. The CDC study: nearly 1 in 5 women, 1 in 71 men sexually assaulted, including rapes.
6. Blog post about Daily Mail article
7. US charity: "9 of every 10 rape victims were female".
I'm only looking at more if you pay for my time.
Quick Reply
Related discussions
- Does Warwick still have a rape culture?
- Why do some soldiers rape?
- Is it alright if my boyfriend slaps me?
- Participants needed!!
- Participants needed
- Students accused of rape at university bringing lawyers to hearings
- Examples of unjust laws in the UK
- Unconscious bias - is it time to rethink how we address VAWG?
- an inspector calls seven deadly sins
- Master's Dissertation Participants
- Compelling personal reasona
- Prime - law work experience!!!
- Capital Punishment Survey
- Atonement question about concealment
- could i talk about sexualisation in my gcse english speech?
- can someone give feedback on my eng lit essay?
- can someone give me feedback and help on my eng lit essay? (A level)
- Is it funny for the home secretrary to make such jokes?
- Gf got spiked on holiday
- Please help me, I’m reluctant to have intimacy
Latest
Trending
Last reply 4 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 4 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 2 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset aboutTrending
Last reply 4 days ago
My friend might be getting extra time and i hate it.Last reply 4 days ago
Just found out about UCL stat test but can't afford to sit itLast reply 2 weeks ago
Dad keeps criticising my university degree choiceLast reply 2 weeks ago
Is this pathetic or genuinely something to be upset about
