Man cleared of rape after having sex with a woman who thought he was someone else

I don't usually think in terms of 'feminist' and 'not-feminist' and had got into my head for this thread that everyone who held an opposing view was a feminist - but obviously not!

The concept that a victim of a crime is not to be blamed for being the victim of a crime seems to me a basic principle which does not need to be stated. Understanding that is not a feminist position- it's a basic human decency position.

As Silver said we need to both reduce the stigma and self-blame for the victim and the pervading view that some men cannot help themselves There is no other crime where such attention is focused on what the victim might have done wrong to bring it on herself..

To be honest gone I can't be bothered reading through your posts now. I did attempt to read through your last stream of consciousness post and it made little sense.

I agree with point 5 of the 'conclusions' being a miscarriage of justice, but it is a 'lesser' miscarriage of justice than becoming a victim of rape IMO.

Lass I do apologise for calling you a feminist. I don't usually think in terms of 'feminist' and 'not-feminist' and had got into my head for this thread that everyone who held an opposing view was a feminist - but obviously not! When I think of 'rape myths', I think of the voice alerting the public to the fact that they are a myth as being a feminist voice. But that was possibly because I have rarely felt curtailed by my gender and haven't, with one exception, faced discrimination for it.

My position is complicated - complicated because anyone expressing this view is open to all sorts of accusations and assumptions that they will also hold a number of very prejudiced associated views. It's also complicated because I'm fully aware that I'm speaking to people who do not want to give any views like this the time of day. So it's necessary to speak backwards and forwards and to spend as long saying what you're not saying as what you're saying, to the point that one poster is conceding there is some logic at about the same time that another poster is complaining that the point is now being laboured!

The best way for rape not to happen is all the ways silverbirch mentioned- yes of course. I think what we have to acknowledge, though, that some people are not remotely interested in rape not happening, and they never will be. Those people do not care that it is your right to live free from fear. They are the people who would prey on you while you are refusing to think about them.

Shortly upthread, a poster said something about this thread not changing what any woman would actually do on a dark night. I disagree. To read through this thread, it looks like you are almost sounding a note against feminism if you decide to do anything to avoid being a situation that carries more risk. To read this thread, even thinking that some situations carry more risk makes you guilty of propounding 'rape myth propaganda'. And most worryingly, to read this thread, one would think that stranger rape never happens - it almost seems to be a myth conjured up to keep women dressing and behaving in a particular way. I understand why that is being said but it's not true. If you don't intend your comments to be taken too literally you should say so, because in my twenties, I would have been quite likely to swallow whole the idea that it was my 'right as a woman' to go exactly where I liked, when I liked, and if someone had told me that stranger rape was tantamount to a myth, I would probably have believed them.

As far as I understand, rape myths involve:

1. She dressed provocatively so he understandably, he thought she 'wanted' it

1. She dressed provocatively so she must have 'wanted' it

1. She dressed provocatively so she can't be the kind of woman that rape would particularly 'sully' anyway - rape only happens to women of poor moral character.

1. She dressed provocatively so how could he be expected to control himself? Men can't help their sex drive and once they get started they can't stop, therefore it's the woman's fault if she got herself into a situation where he 'got started' as it were.

1. The kind of woman who gets raped is the kind who gets herself into compromising situations and then tries to back out at the last minute, after leading the poor fellow on - she's manipulative.

1. Rape only happens to women who are in the sorts of places they shouldn't be.

1. Women who accuse men of raping them might well be doing so to get themselves out of trouble

1. Rape doesn't happen to women who behave modestly and sensibly

1. Rape tarnishes a woman and it's improper for her to publicise that she's experienced it.

10. Rapists are strangers who hide in bushes.

I can understand why believing some of the above has led to a culture in which rape is punished too leniently, not reported, causes psychological damage as a result of guilt, carries stigma, leads to isolation and further penalising of the victim etc.. I didn't mean to suggest that they were true because I don't think they are true. However, the other end of the scale (somewhat defensive conclusions that have been drawn in response to exposure of the myths) throw the baby out with the bathwater and in a sense, throw the listener back upon the kernel of fact in some of the grossly distorted of the rape myths (e.g., you are not particularly safe walking drunk and alone through a city at 3am, albeit you may statistically be in less danger there than other places).

Conclusions that I find extreme:

1. Rapists are virtually never strangers, hiding in bushes or otherwise. It is a patriarchal invention, like the concept of virtue. If you adjust your behaviour to allow for imaginary men hiding in bushes, you are living in fear and subjecting yourself to an oppressive regime. Likewise, there is no rapist looking out for an opportunity to rape you - or if there is, there's nothing you can do about it other than living in a box, see 2.

1. There is absolutely no correlation between any situation, behaviour and rape. It is an entirely random event. There are no danger signs, no warning signals, nothing at all that you can ever do to make yourself safer, other than living in a box. (Therefore research into 'exploitability' is harmful to women because it suggests they should be adjusting their clothing and behaviour).

1. Likewise, there is no research indicating that any group of women (except, it has been conceded, the Rochdale rape victims and sex workers) are at greater risk of being raped as a result of their life experiences, their behaviours or their location. Anyone who says otherwise is making negative insinuations about victims of rape and buying into a patriarchal fiction, as above. (Therefore correlations between rape victims and heavy drinkers, previous victims of rape and victims of sexual abuse are shelved in case it seems to send out the message that it was something the victim did).

1. Rape has nothing to do with sexual desire, ever. Rape always occurs out of the blue when a rapist, who has previously decided to be a rapist, decides to perpetrate an act that is purely about control. That's all there to it; it's impossible to understand any more than it's possible to understand the mind of the devil. (Therefore any research into a correlation between poor communication during sexual touching and rape is tantamount to agreeing that rapists are men who get confused.)

1. Suggesting that women make use of research into how rapists think, what they look for in choosing a victim, correlations in accounts from victims of rape, is all transferring responsibility for rape from the rapist and suggesting it's up to women to avoid being raped. This is a miscarriage of justice and impossible anyway, since no such correlations exist.

1. Stranger rape is a fiction dreamt up by men to keep their women folk at home. (Therefore women can, in theory, walk anywhere they like on a dark night and go home with whoever they like.).

1. All this is going to be taken care of by society eradicating rapists from the population.

Does repeatedly calling lass a feminist, when she has said a number of times that she does not identify as one, count as a personal attack?

The best and only advice to give to humans to avoid rape is to tell men never to go anywhere, drink and to take bromide.

Yep. If you can't be trusted not to go out and rape, then you shouldn't go out.

This poster contains some extremely useful advice to stop rape.

Gone I accept there is some logic in your more recent post. Yes indeed there are steps that we can all take to protect ourselves from any crime.

The trouble with your argument (in the context of rape and sexual assault) is that there are far far bigger problems than the need for self-protection. If we are serious about changing rape culture we need to both reduce the stigma and self-blame for the victim and the pervading view that some men cannot help themselves.

Your earlier posts on this thread very much took the view that for many cases of rape women were at fault through risky behaviour making themselves vulnerable. No doubt many rapists choose 'the most vulnerable victim' or are opportunists, but this is very different to saying women need to learn to protect themselves better. Why should they adjust and change their behaviour because we want to accept rape is more likely in certain circumstances?

Fundamentally we need to be very clear that rape/sexual assault is never ever permissible, appropriate, understandable, because of mixed messages, or the easy access to a victim. The more we offer 'excuses' for a rapists's behaviour the more a society accepts that rape is an inevitable consequence of poor men not being able to control himself when tempted. This is deeply offensive not only to women, but the majority of men.

I will say again rape culture is not a feminist issue, it impacts all non-rapist-men too.

The best and only advice to give to humans to avoid rape is to tell men never to go anywhere, drink and to take bromide.

It's just so much easier to tell women that it's their fault and to curtail their lives accordingly.

Just to reiterate for the hard of thinking.

Lass doesn't identify as a feminist.

This has been said to you by several posters.

Continuing to make sweeping generalisations about a political group based on the posts of someone who generally vociferously disagrees with any and all analysis from the point of view of that political group is nonsensical.

Lass has stated quite clearly and repeatedly on this thread that she is posting on this with a legal opinion, not a feminist one.

Apologies Lass for speaking for you, but obviously your posts are not being read or allowed to stand as they are written. I hope I haven't put words in your mouth.

^^^ Great posts. Spot on......

Silver In relation to point 7, I have read that 'calling out' behaviour doesn't accomplish much without force.

somehow I think those are not the groups Gone has in mind

That's because you are actually not free of prejudice yourself, lass. I've noticed this over and over again about feminism boards and other groups working for social equality. Because you're working against the tide, you make defensive assumptions about anyone who doesn't agree with the specifics of your views, assuming that they are the villain who is responsible for victimising you.

The irony of this position is that you are actually very willing to employ the tools that your 'oppressors' have used to keep control for so long - closing down dialogue with the same stock phrases, making assumptions about any view that is different from your own, feeling entitled to mock or insult the morality of those who hold a different view, refusing to consider the merits of an alternative position in case it jeopardises power you have - that is, the ground you have gained.

There is no mitigation for a perpetrator's guilt to be found in the behaviour of the victim. Not ever. Do you get that?

Of course and I agree. Understanding how a criminal act occurs does not in any way excuse the crime. Do you understand that? In refusing to look more closely at what is actually happening in the lead-up to rape, you are also missing the possibility of actions that could be taken to bring about a different outcome. That does not in any way make the victim responsible for the rape or suggest that there was anything necessarily that they could have done to avoid being raped. Identifying potential exploitability in no way transfers culpability. An explanation is not an excuse.

Also, knowing how you may seem exploitable to a rapist or potential rapist does not mean that you are responsible for somehow lighting the touch paper on a bomb that simply goes off - there is an immense difference. In addition to that, having this information does not affect the crucial importance of preventing rape by starting with the perpetrator and society's attitude. It also doesn't mean that the responsibility lies with women to prevent themselves from being raped.

I agree (and have always agreed) that it is a myth that the victim somehow brings in on herself or that she is likely to be guilty of any behaviours that our society frowns upon.

You can be driving perfectly safely and become involved in a car accident (involving a drunk driver) that is not your fault. Although there is nothing you did to cause the accident and you are in no way responsible for the decisions of the drunken driver at the wheel of another vehicle, there nevertheless may be actions you could take to avoid being caught up in the accident. Not taking these actions does not in any way mean that the drunk driver is less responsible for causing the accident or that you brought the accident upon yourself.

It would be regrettable if, in an effort to make sure that no innocent driver was tainted with any culpability, we insisted that there was absolutely nothing they could have done to avoid involvement in the accident because we were afraid that the identification of any such actions would somehow mitigate the driver's culpability. He was the one who chose to drive drunk and it's his fault. Saying 'I don't want to swerve away from this driver because I have a right to drive on this piece of road and it's his job to drive sensibly' would not help you avoid the accident.

That analogy falls down in all sorts of ways and I can anticipate some of the counter-arguments:
-It doesn't apply to the instances of rape where there is no situational risk or danger cues beforehand. Then, the only way you could avoid the car accident would be to avoid the roads altogether - i.e. avoid all social situations and relationships.
-Although swerving may help one person to avoid being caught up in an accident, the only way to solve the underlying problem is to avoid drink-driving (i.e. educate against rape and make it unacceptable). (True.)

But none of that removes the reality that some people could avoid that car accident by taking evasive action in that specific situation. Or that, if driving in an area where drink-driving accidents abound, it is sensible to know what careless driving looks like and to be on guard in those areas.

Every woman has the right to make that choice for herself, but she deserves to know the facts and to know that not all rape is utterly random.

Well, at least they have bridge in their name...

I responded to you on another thread, Bridget, not realising you were a GF. Thanks for clearing that up though.

Vestal. You understand if those in Cologne were more harshly punished there'd be cries of racism? Some job Merkel is doing who is a woman no less

This has potentially harmful consequences for women, given that, while some rapes may occur randomly, others are more likely to occur to certain groups - who might be safer if they are aware of this

I suppose it's not complete bollocks. Women involved in prostitution are , I would imagine more at risk than women not involved in prostitution.

And unfortunately so too are vulnerable girls in Rochdale scenarios.

Somehow I don't think either of those groups are who Gone has in mind, given the " might be safer if they are aware of this " comment. I'm not entirely clear what she means by it but I assume something along the lines of "if they'd just stop flaunting themselves/giving out the wrong signals" and so on ad nasuem

The best way of taking preventative steps to prevent women being raped are:

1. Stop victim blaming or finding reasons why women are somehow culpable in their sexual assaults.
2. Encourage women to come forward when they have been raped by believing them and treating them with respect for having the personal courage to stand up in court.
3. Convinct more rapists, this helps by taking the individuals who rape out of society for a while. Sends a discouraging message to other would be rapists and encourage more women to come forward.
4. As a society have zero tolerance to any form of sexual assault.
5. Remove the 'shades of grey' that exist in the law about consent.
6. Teach our sons about the importance of clear consent.
7. Teach our daughters that unwanted sexual advances are not their fault in any way and that they have the right to stand-up and call out such behaviour, be it catcalls in the street, groping on public transport or an abusive partner.
8. Believe women who tell us about their experiences.
9. Accept women have a right to go out, have a drink, walk down the street on their own at night without being fearful that their behaviour could be seen as encouraging someone to rape them.

It's fuck all to do with wearing a bikini in the wrong part of town

running the risk of in some way 'explaining' and thereby mitigating the perpetrator's guilt.

It is possible to "explain" a rapist's behaviour by the fact that they are a violent criminal with no regard for the wellbeing of their victim. There is no mitigation for a perpetrator's guilt to be found in the behaviour of the victim. Not ever. Do you get that?

There has been a widening of the definition of rape myth on this thread to involve any correlation whatsoever between a victim's location/characteristics/other specifics and the rape itself.

I can understand why this would be the case, given that psychological outcomes are poorer for rape victims who feel the specifics of their situation may in some way have contributed to the rape. I can also understand that links between the victim's specific circumstances and the assault could make it more difficult for rape victims to come forward and seek help, as well as running the risk of in some way 'explaining' and thereby mitigating the perpetrator's guilt.

However, I still think that the terms rape myth or rape apologist have been loosely and unhelpfully applied. This has potentially harmful consequences for women, given that, while some rapes may occur randomly, others are more likely to occur to certain groups - who might be safer if they are aware of this.