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.

Responsible? Possibly. Popular? Probably not.

I would think of it this way. Would it be irresponsible to go back to a female's flat after a few drinks? If you don't think this is the same, Tyr, you might want to reflect on why you think this is different.
I am not saying this to attack you; I was just a little concerned by your example of leaving a car in a notorious crime zone comment. It sounded a bit like you were comparing putting yourself in the company of men to entering a crime zone. I would argue that there is no comparison. Men are not dangerous by nature to women. We have no need to avoid and fear their company.

No, it would not be a responsible starting point or even a logical one and it is not what I said.
A responsible starting point would be to accept that crime occurs and to seek to minimise one's chances of becoming a victim.
It would be equally illogical to assume that all youths are car thieves.

but Tyr, why should I assume that I'll be a victim of a crime if I go into the home of a man I don't know very well?

Should I assume that he's some kind of criminal? Or that there might be a criminal in his home, waiting to commit a crime against me?

I think you really need to think about what you're saying.

Well, exactly. Because the only way to avoid being raped by a man is to never be anywhere near one. Is this the world we want to live in? Do we accept 'they're just like that'?

makes mental note to cancel upcoming date, ask to be put in women only lectures at uni, ask for solely women teachers, and throw out son when he reaches puberty...

there... should be safe...

I think some of you have adopted caricatures of what I said and didn't say.
DCMP Sorry, but that last post is just silly.
I thought that what I did say was actually quite clear.

But when you're most at risk in your own home, from your partner... how do you "minimise" that risk?

Yes I think your post is quite clear Tyr.

You are saying that if you don't go into the home of a man you don't know very well, you are minimising the risk of crime.

Which crime?

Rape. Or were you thinking of another crime? So does the advice not to enter the home of a man you don't know very well, extend to men, or is it just relevant to women? And do you also think that people shouldn't go into the homes of women they don't know very well in order to minimise the risk of crime?

Assuming that you do mean rape, why would not entering the home of a man you don't know well, minimise your risk of rape?

Er, because he might be a rapist.

How else can that possibly be read?

In effect, you appear to be saying, that the responsible course of action for women, is to treat any unknown man as if he is a rapist and not enter their houses in order to minimise the risk to ourselves of being raped.

I'm sorry if I'm labouring this, but you do realise that that sounds as if you think all men are rapists, or if they are not all rapists, then women should at least treat them all as if they might be. If a feminist said that, she would be very swiftly labelled a man-hater. Do you really not realise that that's what it sounds like you are saying?

In any case, given that most rapes are committed by men who are known to the victim of the rape, the advice not to enter the home of a man you don't know well, is a bit pointless. They would be better advised not to enter the homes of men they are very well acquainted with, as those are the men statistically most likely to rape them.

I am really sorry if you think that we are adopting caricatures of what you are saying.

That really isn't my intention, I am reading exactly what you said and I genuinely don't know how else it can be read. I'm happy to read a clarification, but telling me I'm adopting a caricature, isn't clarifying anything. I'm baffled by how you think what you said can mean anything other than what I understand by it.

Not because people won't believe them though HRH

But I think you're right in that anyone who has been through any very traumatic experience, finds it difficult to talk about.

However, someone who is assaulted will be offered counselling, victim support etc. Whereas someone who has been raped, generally doesn't report, so won't be offered that. Rape Crisis get people ringing up twenty years after they were raped needing to talk about it.

Holding a drunk woman responsible for her own rape, is not a feminist position, HRH.

Imagine your son is gay. He is drunk and forcibly penetrated by his equally drunk male friend. Do you honestly think he is just as responsible for his own rape, as the boy who penetrated him in that situation?

Because the very act of forced penetration, is the active act of aggression, drunk or not. How can your son be equally responsible for that act?

Where one party is sober and one drunk, rape, where one party is not "participating" (and I mean girl isnt or boy isnt), rape, but when they both participate - is that rape??

What else would it be?

And you know what, if your daughter came home having been raped while drinking, I bet your theoretical position of her being equally responsible for what happened to her, would fly out the window.

Because if it didn't, it would be the most enormous betrayal of her and a horrifying thing to do to a rape victim. But having heard your opinion of that sort of situation, the likelihood is, that she would blame herself and never tell you and you would never know.

Hmmm... but there's the problem... both parties "appear" to be consenting.

Seeing as how there are no witnesses, who decides if both parties appear to be consenting?

The rapist has a vested interest in lying and pretending that the other party appeared to be consenting. The rape victim has no motive to lie about it, unless s/he has some kind of "ishoos" which lead him/ her to falsely allege rape. And most people don't have such serious ishoos....

Also how would you define forcibly penetrate in the situation of your for the sake of argument gay son?

Force doesn't have to involve violence. It can simply be a sustained refusal to pick up negative signals from someone who can simply not believe that this is happening to them and doesn't really believe, right up to the moment of penetration, that this is really going to happen.

Would you tell your DS in that situation that he's equally culpable?

"I have seen what would be seen as consensual sex (at the time) described as rape, because a drunk person cant consent, its only this aspect I am struggling to explain to them."

So, you were in the roomm when they had sex, so you know consent was always given, definite, not pressured, etc?