posted
I'm wondering what legally constitutes rape. If you're drunk and some one has sex with you can that be rape, even if at the time you were too drunk to really care?
Also, how can you tell if your drink has been drugged, are there blood tests and stuff you can perform?
This isn't personal, nothing has happened to me, I just saw a rape hotline ad on TV today and was wondering.
Posts: 4655 | Registered: Jan 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
But I knew a guy who picked up a girl at a bar and she later got him charged with rape. He had to spend a couple years in prison. I don't mean to say a woman gives up her rights by going into a bar, but making someone else serve jail time because she didn't know when to stop letting guys order her drinks seems a little unfair. Fortunately/unfortunately, I don't know any more details than that.
Posts: 11017 | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm baffled by the assertion that guys cannot claim to be the victims of rape. (I admit, though, that I have not clicked on the link . . . I'm just surfing briefly while writing a paper . . . later on I will follow the link.) Do you mean that women cannot be accused of rape (also wrongheaded, but less so) or what you actually said, that men cannot legally press charges for rape in some states?
posted
Legal definitions of rape vary by state and by the age of the victim. No-one under the age of 18 can legally give consent, for example, but between the age of 16 and 18, (again, it varies by state) there's some sort of weird middle ground.
Now, assuming that all people involved are above the age of legal responsibility, then the definition of rape is pretty much set by the jury or judge. Basically, the prosecutor has to decide if there is enough evidence to charge someone. The victim has to make an accusation, unless of course the state has compelling evidence even if the victim cannot press charges (i.e., is incapacitated or dead).
Sadly, this means that women can make accusations of rape in this country even if they were just having second thoughts. It also means that rape is a tough crime to prove in a court of law. So bona fide rapists go free while some men who just made bad choices in who they had sex with end up in jail.
Now, let's talk ethical behavior rather than law...
In my opinion, rape is:
1) Sex with anyone under the age of consent (unless both people are under the age of consent, in which case it isn't automatically a rape, but it still is a problem...) Sorry, but I believe society has a vested interest in setting the age of consent and enforcing it.
2) Sex with anyone whose judgement is impaired at the time. Even if they give their consent, you know in your heart-of-hearts that it isn't right and they aren't thinking clearly. So, that's rape. If your judgement is also impaired the time, well, that doesn't make it not rape, but it does add a greater measure of just plain stupidity as opposed to deliberate assault.
3) Sex that continues after the other person says "no!" or otherwise indicates that they would like to stop. Doesn't matter how horny you are, btw. If she says stop and you don't, that's rape.
4) Sex that continues when you know she really would rather not. This is sort of a variation on #3 above, but basically any guy who realizes that his partner would prefer to stop and then he just continues on anyway is assaulting an unwilling partner. She might even tell you to go on, but should you??? I think not.
Am I missing any situations?
I didn't deal with men being the victim. Should I?
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, why? We all know that men are the only peopel who ever rape. Women never do it. The idae that they could even do so is insane. Seriously, women never engage in activites that if a male did he would be called a rapist.
I never said that. I just took the more common case to list my personal viewpoint on what constitutes an act of rape.
Posts: 22497 | Registered: Sep 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm suprised that in some states a rape can't happen to a man. We've been talking about woman on man rape, but... well...
Posts: 3495 | Registered: Feb 2000
| IP: Logged |
posted
I'm not sure that having sex under an influence is necessarily rape. Not that I have them, but I know plenty of people who get drunk and have one-night stands -- it's the point of a bar, really.
posted
Pooka, I am aware of at least two situations where a man alleges that he was handcuffed to a bed, beaten, and raped. I also know of one situation where a male college student who had told his roommates that he was choosing to remain a virgin until marriage was essentially gang-raped. He was tied down by his male "friends," who then got a female (I can't recall if it was a prostitute or simply a female student) to have sex with him against his protestations. (This latter case had eye-witnesses, and resulted in convictions). Come to think of it, at least one of the other two resulted in a conviction as well.
The difficulty in proving these cases is that some people will believe that the presence of an erection implies consent, regardless of the victim's words to the contrary. But as any adolescent male can tell you, erections are not always voluntary. The other difficulty is in believing that a female is physically capable of overpowering a male. But in addition to the cases involving restraint, there are many documented cases of men being beaten by women, so while a woman having the physical strength to subdue a man may be uncommon, it is by no means impossible.
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
In Indiana, Rape occurs when one person is any or all of the following: -under the age of 16 -unconscious -under the influence - un-willing
Posts: 1094 | Registered: Mar 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Sorry, Bob, if you took my snarky reply to be against you: it's against the idea in general.
And, in even the cases with convictions, I highly doubt the females will get a punishment as heavy as their male counterparts.
Posts: 3060 | Registered: Nov 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Women rapists most certainy SHOULD get the stiffest penalty a man would. Rape is about misdirected anger and power. Whoever is a victim of it is raped, and whoever does it is a rapist. Liz
Posts: 10890 | Registered: May 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Legally, I know there are some semi-arbitrary rules regarding what counts as rape and what doesn't.
But ethically speaking, here's what I would call rape: Having sex with someone (male or female) when you know or should know that they don't want to.
Rape implies not just a passive ignorance, but also an active intent to ignore the wishes of the other partner.
Also, supposed limitations on who is allowed to consent and who is not are purely artificial. Everyone who can indicate what they want is capable of consenting, by nature.
Thus the following things should not be called rape: -Sex with someone who didn't want it, but who did not make this clear and acted in a manner that could reasonably be interpreted as indicating a desire to have sex -Sex with someone who is drunk or under the influence and willingly indicates they want it -Sex with someone under age who willingly indicates they want it
However, the following similar situations ARE rape: -Tricking someone into agreeing to sex -Having sex with someone who willingly agrees to it, but for whom it is reasonably clear that they do not understand sex and would not want it if they understood. -Having sex with someone who is drunk but for whom it is reasonably clear that they would not want sex if sober. These fall under the "should know they don't want sex" part of the definition. Even if they don't know themselves that they don't want it, in certain cases you should.
quote:Also, supposed limitations on who is allowed to consent and who is not are purely artificial. Everyone who can indicate what they want is capable of consenting, by nature.
Thus the following things should not be called rape: . . . . -Sex with someone under age who willingly indicates they want it
However, the following similar situations ARE rape: -Tricking someone into agreeing to sex -Having sex with someone who willingly agrees to it, but for whom it is reasonably clear that they do not understand sex and would not want it if they understood.
I assume that you mean by this that an eight-year-old is not capable of giving consent, but a sixteen-year-old is. The thing is, though, that there are those who would disagree with you (on either proposition). So where do we draw the line? I think a line needs to be drawn somewhere, and at this point in time, our community standards indicate that that line is at the age of 18. Of course it's arbitrary, and plenty of sixteen-year-olds are more mature than plenty of twenty-year-olds and yadda yadda yadda . . . but do you think that this distinction of being able to give consent can, or should, be argued on a case by case basis instead of an arbitrary line in the sand?
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote:I assume that you mean by this that an eight-year-old is not capable of giving consent, but a sixteen-year-old is.
No, eight-year-olds are just as capable of agreeing to stuff as sixteen-year-olds are. I've met many eight-year-olds and all of them were easily capable of making decisions, including myself at that age. It's a capability learned somewhere between being baby and becoming a toddler who can say "yes" and "no" - something almost all people and even children can do.
I did say, though, that it is rape if you have sex "with someone who willingly agrees to it, but for whom it is reasonably clear that they do not understand sex and would not want it if they understood." I'd presume most, if not all, eight-year-olds fall into this category. But it's not a matter of age at all. It's a matter of understanding, and thus any ethical rule about age is missing the point.
Legally, it's simpler to just make it a matter of age - which can be proven beyond a doubt. But when you are talking about what actually IS right, what counts is the right answer, not what is simpler.
Posts: 2432 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the actual age is not the point, but whether we should use a specific age or a more freeflowing determination of who does or does not know what sex is and what the consequences of sex are.
Maybe a multiple choice test . . .
Posts: 1112 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ok, here's the purely legal answer. I am most familiar with Australian law on this subject, but I did do a comparative unit last year and did an assignment on this topic which addressed American law. So my information should (emphasis on the *should*) be correct.
The biggest inidica of rape is consent. Consent is always from the view of the perpetrator. This view has changed from what the perpetrator *actually* thought was happening to what a reasonable person in the perpetrator's position would think was happening.
So if a reasonable person would not view consent as being given by the victim, this is rape. Therefore in a case where a victim says "no" the perpetrator cannot claim "I thought s/he really meant yes" as a defence, even if he s/he honestly believed that.
I use s/he because in all Australian jurisdictions and in some American ones, both men and women are capable of being both perpetrators and victims of rape - ie you can have a man raping a woman, a man raping a man, a woman raping a woman or a woman raping a man. The usual definition is penetration of the anus, vagina or urethra by any object or body part OR the penetration of the mouth by the penis. I think that the case of forcible sex with the woman being the perpetrator (ie nothing of the man's is actually penetrated) is also covered by Australian law.
However, it should be noted that while men definately can be, and are, raped, rape remains predominantly an act against women victims. Some legal theorists argue that even when a man is the victim, he is effectively 'feminized' - rape is essentially about power and domination. However, that is more of a theoretical consideration. I have an essay I wrote on it last year if anyone wants to see a more in-depth dicussion.
Back to consent - consent cannot be gained by fraud, threat, the abuse of a position of power or the delibrate use of drugs. So if you purposely get someone drunk, or give them drugs so that they won't say no, that could be construed as rape. The question would be would a reasonable person see the secnario as one where consent was not given.
On the threat thing - consent given while a gun is being pointed at your head (or similar) is not consent. Pretty straight forward.
The abuse of a position of power usually concerns much older pepetrators and younger victims who rely on them: ie school teacher - student, mental health counseller - young patient. Obviously not all of these situations will be rape, but they can be - if the only reason a person says yes is the position of the other person (eg "If I say no, he'll expel me...").
Fraud can involve mistaken identity - people consenting because they thought the perpetrator was someone else (usually their spouse).
Finally in terms of age: statutory rape is slightly different from "regular" rape (*winces* I know that sounds dreadful) - the question is not whether the victim consented - the victim cannot legally consent. Doesn't matter how they were behaving, doesn't matter what they said. The law is there to protect young people. "S/he led me on" is not a defence, and in my opinion, nor should it be. If you're going to be having sex while a teenager (or with a teenager) the least you can do is check that your partner is over 16.
*wipes brow* whew! As you can guess, I've done some work on this subject. If anyone wants any more details, or sources/articles/legislation let me know - either here or email.
quote: Women rapists most certainy SHOULD get the stiffest penalty a man would. Rape is about misdirected anger and power. Whoever is a victim of it is raped, and whoever does it is a rapist. Liz
But we don't live in this dream world.
Posts: 1458 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
posted
I have some questions pertaining to a friend who may or may not have been raped, but I 'm not sure she would want me posting what happened on the internet, so could someone who feels they have fairly extensive knowledge of rape law please email me?
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
