The Myths About Women Who "Cry Rape"

[DontCallMePeanut]

From The Telegraph

Sorry, my head's not in the right place to provide any critique of this at the moment, but thought this would interest the members of the feminist section. Will attempt to comment when I have a clearer head.

"1. Accusing us of the old chesnut: that we are saying all men are rapists. It has been pretty clear from this thread that no one thinks that."

I didn't make that accusation, but the words men and rapist were becoming interchangable for a bit is all.

2. The 4% are bonkers, I have no idea what's going on in their head. I assume the others would say (as I said I would not pick the 'partially responsible' response) that they mean that they mean partially responsible in the 'in the real world you have to be careful' way and not denying the criminal is actually 100% responsible for his actions at the end of the day.

I think it's a flawed question, especially as it is then used to say 'partially responsible' equals 'blame.' Blame is generally black and white. I think the respondents just don't or were trying not to see things in black and white terms.

"And 'date rape' is rape."

Hence the quotes. And when I said 'he rapes her' I think it's obvious I don't think it's anything but.

No the words men and rapist were not becoming interchangeable. One is a subset of the other, if that's what's confusing.

But rape is pretty black and white...

It's having sex with someone without their consent, or by using force or threats to get their consent...

What's so confusing about that?

But it is a black and white matter: either the sex was consentual or it wasn't. Either it was rape or it wasn't.

The whole idea that some people think there is some kind of grey area on the matter is indicative of the fact that they do not accept that a rapist should take full responsability for his actions.

"But rape is pretty black and white...

It's having sex with someone without their consent, or by using force or threats to get their consent...

What's so confusing about that?"

It's not confusing. But (I think) some people interpret 'partially responsible' in a different way. Listen, if that survey had had just one more option, with 'partially responsible' being split into 'a little bit responsible' or 'mostly responsible' I'd be much happier... even though some here (and elsewhere) would reject even 'a little bit responsible' as a valid response, my guess, maybe wrong, is that that's what most of those respondents meant - 'a little bit responsible' If in fact many of them said 'largely responsible' I'd be on your side saying lots of people have terrible attitudes to rape that need changing. Do you know what I mean?

But you know what, I'm conceding this point. Keep at those who think a woman is partially responsible for being raped if she's drunk. It is a stupid thing to think/say and I'm sick of sticking up for anyone who said it. People will say if you leave your door open you are asking to be burgled, people will say you are partially responsible. But if they say that re rape, short skirts or being drunk, fuck em. Ok?

^ Not sarcastic, I've changed my mind.

A little bit responsible? So... we're still responsible for the acts of others? Wow... Thanks for that...

DCMP, I was justifying how others might have seen that question. The same way they might say someone is partially responsible if they fall asleep on a bus with their laptop next to them. Some people WOULD say they were partially responsible, and 'blame the victim'

But then, and this is the important part, I got sick of defending people I don't agree with and giving them the benefit of the doubt, and I'm now agreeing that it is wrong to say anyone who is raped is partially responsible. Because it just sounds obviously wrong, whatever they might think in a nice 'common sense, be realistic' way.

Consent isn't always pivotal, it doesn't play much if any part at all if the defendant denies any sexual contact in the first place. It's usually for acquaintance type situations, I suppose that's the 'grey area' - what steps were taken to ensure consent, how reasonable was the defendant's belief that consent had been given. I sort of agree with MSFTW that juries probably aren't as influenced by various of those myths, confusing and unhelpful direction by judges is probably a bigger problem.

MarySue: I hope what you are trying to get at is this:

If you have been burgled after leaving your door wide open by mistake; or had your ipad stolen when you had left in full view on the train while you were asleep/drunk; most people would be sympathetic and think you unlucky. Unlucky in the sense that a thief happened to take advantage of the situation and take your possessions. They might say to you "well, you won't do that again will you?" or words to that effect, but they won't think it "wasn't really a burglary/robbery" because you "accidently left the door open" or "left your ipad in the view of everyone whilst asleep".

The victim of rape is unlucky in this sense. She is unlucky to meet a rapist who decides to rape her. Whatever she was wearing or however much she had been drinking has no bearing on this: doesn't make her partially responsible -not even a tiny bit- for what a rapist does. Nor should her rape be thought of "not really a rape". The women in question has no control whatsoever over what a rapist might do; the rapist is the only one responsible.

A thief is the only one responsible for stealing, even if the door is open. An open door does not constitute consent to the robbery on behalf of the homeowner. Dress, demeanour and alcohol intake do not constitute consent to sex.

This is why I don't accept the idea of responsibility, not even the teeniest tiny bit, when it comes to victims. Perpetratots are responsible. Victims are not; they are unlucky. And everyone can be unlucky; even when sober and dressed from top to toe in a burqua.

Mitchiest, I'd hope that's not the case. Consent should always be free from pressure, fear or intimidation...

Yet people put so much pressure on the "but did she say yes"... even "if she said no to start with, she was just playing hard to get"

MichiestInge: In my opinion, I think that the only reasonable thing that a defendent could argue to say he was convinced that consent had been given would have been the the verbal expression of agreement ie "yes I want to have sex".

Any other arguments: she was his girlfriend, she had already had sex with him before, she went back to his for coffee etc etc should not be interpreted as consent. Even if you are married or already in a sexual relationship with someone you always have the right to say no.

I'd be interested if you would elaborate about the judge though.

And of course I am forgetting the aspect of intimidation and fear....

Catitainahatita do you say 'yes I want to have sex' every time?

I don't know, the verbal yes sounds reasonable to me but I'm just thinking out loud. It's not something I've had masses to do with but I do remember the reforms and being part of a group who read and responded to earlier drafts - so I know the Morgan? test, the mistaken belief thing was replaced with reasonableness but don't know what the current reasonableness test is. Lots of people wanted it to be objective. There are people on here who would know.

Judges, you must remember in various countries not so long ago chucking out cases because the victim had tight jeans on? Skinny jeans. I definitely remember English judges speaking out against restrictions on use of the victim's sexual history in rape trials, saying they would work round it, more than one judge. And more recently there was something in a few papers about juries just not understanding directions from the judge.

I don't think I've ever said that - but I have clearly given consent in other ways.

I don't remember his name but one of the Ministers said it was a very minor thing for a man to check for consent when weighed against impact of unwanted sexual contact - obviously paraphrasing badly, am sure was more elegant originally.

Yes I do. I have also said to partners/boyfriends/blokes I have gone home with after a drunken night out, in between kissing them passionately on the sofa/bed that I am not going to have sex with them too.

There are quite a few sites which offer handy guides to men on how to deal with the issue how to know if the intended sexual partner wants to have sex; for example:

polimicks.livejournal.com/16331.html

Yes most women don't talk at all ever, to anyone, about their rape because they simply cannot bear the thought that they will see that look of polite incredulity when they talk about one of the most traumatic experiences of their lives.

Viz the "she had had a hundred lovers already and she was only twenty" argument, even before my feminist consciousness was raised, I never quite understood that argument. I always used to think "If she was in the business of regularly sleeping around and she wasn't that fussy, the very fact that she's complaining about this particular guy, indicates that in fact it was rape - after all, if she doesn't generally notice who she has a casual fuck with, the fact that she's so upset about this one that she's gone to the police about it, means it wasn't just a casual fuck it was actual rape." I still don't understand why more people who don't take a feminist approach to rape, don't have that logic.

Forgive me for lurking on this thread and for making a point that has already been articulated (if it has) but the issue of responsibility interests me.
I don?t think that irresponsible behaviour of a victim before the crime is the same as being partially responsible/to blame for the crime itself.
If I leave the keys in my car in an area notorious for car theft, that is irresponsible.
It does not mitigate the responsibility of the car thief for his actions.
If a woman gets drunk and goes back to a stranger?s house, I would say that is probably irresponsible behaviour. 99 times out of 100, no harm may come off it; if it does, she is not to blame for the actions of the rapist.

Why is it irresponsible behaviour Tyr? It's only irresponsible if you suspect that someone is a rapist or a murderer and might rape or murder you.

If you think they're just a normal person, why is it irresponsible to go to their home? What is the danger of going into the home of someone you don't know? Most houses are perfectly safe, not booby-trapped at all.

Or are women supposed to assume that all men are rapists so we shouldn't go into their homes?

Is a responsible starting-point, to believe that all men are rapists?