Why do some men commit rape?

Canadel · 19-02-2016 10:34AM

salamanca22 wrote: »

Why are some women rapists?

I hate the fact that some people choose to label all men as potential rapists. That is very far from the fact.

The definition of potential is as follows:

having or showing the capacity to develop into something in the future.

Now I don't know about you but I definitely do not fit that description. I may have the physical ability to do it, I am larger than most women but I definitely do not have the mental capacity to do it. The potential for my brain to tell my body to do something so heinous is not there so therefore no, I am not a potential rapist and would appreciate it if society would stop telling people that I am.

Every person is a potential rapist. Having the potential to rape does not necessarily mean you are ever going to show the capacity to rape or develop into a rapist. But the potential is still there. You have the ability to rape, and it could potentially occur at some time in your life. Just like every person has the potential to be a murderer, a child molester, a violent criminal etc. The potential is there, though most of us will never carry out any of those acts.

Oh, and if a mod thinks this post is attention seeking then they need to go outside and play with their friends while the adults talk.

cowboyBuilder · 19-02-2016 10:43AM

I used to think when I was a teenager - why the hell do some men rape?
Why can't they just put some money aside and go to a prostitute if they are so frustrated.

Obviously we all know now that it's a crime of violence against women,
simple as that, it's a misogynistic (to the extreme) violent act.

But I don't like that poster, I think it formalizes it to much like you need written permission - consent I think just as non consent is obvious.

I have never asked before, even the few one night stands I did have when I was single (too few

) it was going that way ...

ivytwine · 19-02-2016 10:44AM

lazybones32 wrote: »

There have been cuts across the whole board, so the Rape Crisis Centre isn't the only organisation to suffer. It's the price paid to make Ireland a great Country to do business in and the fastest growing economy in Europe:pac:

You mightn't like the process but there's little point in letting the woman go home, have a shower and wash her clothes, if in doing so, she removes the genetic material that can be used as evidence.
I don't blame men or women who react to being raped in whatever way they choose but I'd like them to know that the best procedure for 'justice' to be served, isn't to go home and make the complaint when you feel courageous enough.

I completely understand why they can't let someone go home and get changed. However if they could not have a woman from Donegal having to go down to Galway to be examined that'd be great.

Better training for guards, the ability for an exam to be done locally (cross border cooperation maybe?) would make a huge difference.

Many people feel reporting it is pointless though.

AnonoBoy · 19-02-2016 10:55AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

There clearly is a distinction. A woman walking home alone at night does not expect to be pounced on. A woman who goes to a hotel room has a reasonable expectation that sexual activity may occur.

And so..... that entitles someone to rape her? Or are you saying it's not rape because she should have known that the man would be expecting sex?

How on earth is that women "wanting it both ways" or is this one of your examples of a woman being "equally responsible in a lot of cases"?

A woman goes to a hotel room with a man, perhaps with the intention of sleeping with him. She decides not to but is raped. This makes her as responsible as the man?

That's a staggeringly backward view.

tritium · 19-02-2016 10:58AM

Lu Tze wrote: »

I haven't read the book referenced, though I have seen similar posts to the op, and newspaper articles previously. They seem to be great at highlighting problems, but also short on proposing any solutions.

Just to take one point, the low conviction rates. Would the op or anybody else like to propose a a solution for this?

Would people be comfortable with an exception being made for only one crime (rape) where the burden of proof is reduced for a conviction to be given? A crime which under current legislation, can only be commuted by one gender? The implications for men falsely accused would be enormous in this scenario. Any other suggestions?

I find I have very little time for people on any topic which just criticise and highlight problems without giving any thoughts on concepts and ideas for resolving the problems they are highlighting?

There seem to be so many factors behind the low conviction rate. For a start, low relative to what? The numbers being compared to are often flights of fantasy that squeeze in everything and anything as rape. Somewhat unfortunately its difficult to get agreement in many cases as to what a layperson considers rape. Then there's the possibility that the two parties may greatly differ on what has happened and if/how consent was given, (especially in social settings with alcohol involved).

Even if it gets to a trial stage its often a case of one persons word against another and who a jury believe so context becomes important, regardless if whether some advocates like it or not. And there's after all that the nature of the legal system and presumption of innocence which sets an incredibly high threshold for conviction, for obvious reasons, for any crime, not just rape. Again you can't make an exemption to burden of proof just because we don't like the way the numbers fall in some instances.

Unless you can counteract all of the above, without reducing the rights of an accused person then the figures will always seem controversial regardless of other factors (not to say we shouldn't address other factors like police and hospital training)

In terms of the original question, why do some men rape? A tiny percentage of men commit this crime. In spite of some intentionally inflated statistics there isn't actually a rapist lurking behind every corner. That's not to diminish the seriousness of the crime, just to give some context. Why they do it, or indeed why people (of both genders) commit sexual crimes- that likely has a range of reasons, spanning a spectrum from pure evil to the greyer areas of what consent is understood to be.

Wibbs · 19-02-2016 11:03AM

Canadel wrote: »

Oh, and if a mod thinks this post is attention seeking then they need to go outside and play with their friends while the adults talk.

Canadel, you've already been warned for silly posts, that one crosses the line. Do NOT post in this thread again or you will be banned from the forum. Thank you

Tipperary Fairy · 19-02-2016 11:03AM

intheclouds wrote: »

There are no different categories of rape. Its actually very simple.

No, it reeeeeeeeeeeeeeally isn't that simple. Have you read about the Ched Evans case at all? What is frightening is that you could be charged with and convicted of rape when there's absolutely no evidence of rape, no complainant and no witnesses, when you're meant to just know that someone is too drunk to be able to consent, even when they seem perfectly fine.

Also it's considered rape technically in Sweden if your condom breaks and you don't tell your partner. (not that I'm saying that's ok, but it has got nothing to do with your 'simple' definition of rape)

newport2 · 19-02-2016 11:04AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think woman are equally responsible in a lot of cases.

Well done, worst opening line I've ever read on boards and that is saying something.

frostyjacks wrote: »

There's a dichotomy between how women are telling men to behave and what they actually enjoy. Look at the phenomenon of Fifty Shades of Grey; essentially one big rape fantasy. So either women like men to be forceful or they don't; they seem to want it both ways.

Aside from the fact that consent was given in Fifty Shades of Grey (key difference), it's possible to be turned on by the concept of doing something without actually wanting to do it. Just because some woman might be turned on thinking about 3 guys in bed with her does not mean she actually wants to do that in real life. That's why it's called a fantasy.

Wanderer78 · 19-02-2016 11:16AM

I believe rape occurs due to complex mental health and behavioural problems

johnnyskeleton · 19-02-2016 11:26AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

I think woman are equally responsible in a lot of cases. There's a dichotomy between how women are telling men to behave and what they actually enjoy. Look at the phenomenon of Fifty Shades of Grey; essentially one big rape fantasy. So either women like men to be forceful or they don't; they seem to want it both ways.

Some women like men to be forceful and some don't. Unromantic as it sounds, if a woman is into fifty shades of grey stuff, she will probably say that in an open discussion as to what she is, and is not, into. If she doesn't say anything of the kind, you can safely assume that she is not into it.

The law should also be changed to reflect the different categories of rape. It's a very broad term as it stands. You read about cases of a girl going back to some guy's hotel room after a night out, which implies consent. Maybe what eventually transpires was wrong but it's not the same as some maniac lurking behind the bushes.

I don't think going back to someone's hotel room necessarily implies consent. Maybe she just wants to have another drink or have non-intercourse intimacy. In any event, she can always change her mind. In such a situation a jury can find, based on the evidence, whether there was consent, or whether the man reasonably believed there was consent, in which case he is entitled to be acquitted i.e. he is not guilty.

If the jury finds that she wasn't consenting and he knew, but did it anyway then yes, it is rape and yes, it's just as bad as the maniac lurking behind the bushes. Potentially worse, if the former involves a breach of trust.

Wibbs · 19-02-2016 11:31AM

ivytwine wrote: »

I work and interact with a lot of guys and I don't see what herself and Una Mullaly see.

Personally speaking Ivy when I see any opinion by Una Doolally I can assume the content to be scaling the heights of daft. The term "rape culture" another signpost that what follows is pushing industrial levels of daft.

The men here who are not rapists cannot give you an insight into their minds any more than I can tell you what an earth a grown woman wants from an 11 year old boy.

+1.

Ireland's national pastime of getting blackout drunk doesn't help with the blurring of lines either.

It really doesn't and all sorts of consent and agency and responsibility stuff comes along for the ride.

I find the shutting down of any common sense advice towards women incredibly irritating too. In an ideal world, yes, we could do whatever we want, but we can't. I'd advise male friends not to go around certain areas of Dublin at night- same as women. Basic Internet safety states if you don't want your mum or boss to see it, don't have it on a big cloud server in California. It's not empowering for anyone to send nudes anyway. It's ****ing stupid. You can still feel sympathy for women who find themselves in that situation while ensuring it doesn't happen to you.

Good God Ivy you can't be going around saying even the tiniest thought towards personal safety and responsibility is advised.

This is NOT "victim blaming" either. If I leave my wallet on the table in a pub while I go to the bar and it gets stolen, the thief is still a scumbag thief and 100% responsible for being one, but I'm also an idiot. On the internet safety stuff, education starting young should be in place. It seems obvious to me that sending nudes to partners across the wires is probably not the best of plans, but might not be so obvious to a young teenager. We all made mistakes at that age, sadly such mistakes can go viral these days in ways they couldn't before. Though because people have such short attention spans the hullabaloo tends to die down very rapidly to be replaced by the next shiny object online.

Just on a note on the Aussie survey, I lived there and found it a far more sexist society than Ireland. I think Irish men actually have much more respect for women.

I'd generally agree with that. Ditto when comparing Italy, Spain with Ireland.

Alf Veedersane · 19-02-2016 11:36AM

frostyjacks wrote: »

You read about cases of a girl going back to some guy's hotel room after a night out, which implies consent.

It doesn't imply consent to sex.

intheclouds · 19-02-2016 11:41AM

Tipperary Fairy wrote: »

No, it reeeeeeeeeeeeeeally isn't that simple. Have you read about the Ched Evans case at all? What is frightening is that you could be charged with and convicted of rape when there's absolutely no evidence of rape, no complainant and no witnesses, when you're meant to just know that someone is too drunk to be able to consent, even when they seem perfectly fine.

Also it's considered rape technically in Sweden if your condom breaks and you don't tell your partner. (not that I'm saying that's ok, but it has got nothing to do with your 'simple' definition of rape)

The difficulty in the Ched Evans case is around whether or not she was capable of giving consent.

Im not suggesting that circumstances are black and white btw, there may be many shades of grey (pardon the pun) in establishing whether or not consent was given. But the fact remains that if someone does NOT give consent then it is rape.

The swedish example is excellent, a woman consents to protected sex, but if the protection breaks and the guy knows but doesnt tell her then he has not obtained her consent for that act (ie, unprotected sex). Simple!

newport2 · 19-02-2016 11:45AM

intheclouds wrote: »

The swedish example is excellent, a woman consents to protected sex, but if the protection breaks and the guy knows but doesnt tell her then he has not obtained her consent for that act (ie, unprotected sex). Simple!

And if a woman tells a man she is on the pill but isn't (or doesn't mention she forgot to take it the night before) then she has not obtained his consent for that act (ie, unprotected sex). Will she be held to the same standards and be prosecuted for rape?

intheclouds · 19-02-2016 11:50AM

newport2 wrote: »

And if a woman tells a man she is on the pill but isn't (or doesn't mention she forgot to take it the night before) then she has not obtained his consent for that act (ie, unprotected sex). Will she be held to the same standards and be prosecuted for rape?

She should be. But I think any proof of this would be very very difficult to obtain, whereas with a torn condom you have a physical piece of evidence. She could simply claim that she did take it and it didnt work (perhaps she took it at the wrong time?), or that she did take it but had an upset stomach within 3 hours and she didnt realise that might compromise it or that it simply failed (its not 100% effective) etc...

Its a waste of time for a court to try and prove something like that whereas a woman who discovers a torn condom has a physical piece of evidence (and even if they dont have the condom, they will have the guys DNA in them).

newport2 · 19-02-2016 11:53AM

intheclouds wrote: »

She should be. But I think any proof of this would be very very difficult to obtain, whereas with a torn condom you have a physical piece of evidence. She could simply claim that she did take it and it didnt work (perhaps she took it at the wrong time?), or that she did take it but had an upset stomach within 3 hours and she didnt realise that might compromise it or that it simply failed (its not 100% effective) etc...

Its a waste of time for a court to try and prove something like that whereas a woman who discovers a torn condom has a physical piece of evidence (and even if they dont have the condom, they will have the guys DNA in them).

In most rape cases, any proof is very very difficult to obtain, usually one person's word against another. Doesn't mean it's a waste of time for a court to try and prove it.

intheclouds · 19-02-2016 11:57AM

newport2 wrote: »

In most rape cases, any proof is very very difficult to obtain, usually one person's word against another. Doesn't mean it's a waste of time for a court to try and prove it.

Yes. But I am speaking about the specific example you suggested. In THAT case I believe it would be absolutely impossible to prove that the woman either lied or otherwise about taking the pill and a waste of time by the courts.

Realistically the pill isnt 100% effective so regardless of lying about taking it, the guy is still agreeing to taking a small risk when he consents to sex with a woman on the pill.

Whereas a torn condom is obviously comparable to no condom which was not agreed to.

newport2 · 19-02-2016 12:06PM

intheclouds wrote: »

Its a waste of time for a court to try and prove something like that whereas a woman who discovers a torn condom has a physical piece of evidence (and even if they dont have the condom, they will have the guys DNA in them).

intheclouds wrote: »

Yes. But I am speaking about the specific example you suggested. In THAT case I believe it would be absolutely impossible to prove that the woman either lied or otherwise about taking the pill and a waste of time by the courts.

But even if she had the torn condom, if the man said he did tell her, it would be absolutely impossible to prove that he didn't. So a waste of time in the courts too? Any case that comes down to one person's word against another's is impossible to prove.

I know this is a looping discussion, it's just you said the Swedish example as an example of how simple things are when it comes to rape. Either scenario is impossible to prove, yet only the man's case is a waste of time? Not so simple.

intheclouds · 19-02-2016 12:15PM

newport2 wrote: »

But even if she had the torn condom, if the man said he did tell her, it would be absolutely impossible to prove that he didn't. So a waste of time in the courts too? Any case that comes down to one person's word against another's is impossible to prove.

I know this is a looping discussion, it's just you said the Swedish example as an example of how simple things are when it comes to rape. Either scenario is impossible to prove, yet only the man's case is a waste of time? Not so simple.

We will have to agree to disagree.

orubiru · 19-02-2016 12:24PM

Halloween Jack wrote: »

You really don't get it at all do you. Going back to someone's hotel room does not imply consent AT ALL. There is no distinction between the scenarios you present, if sex happens without consent its rape, be it in an alleyway or a marital bed.

When we consider a scenario like that there needs to be a lot more education on how the law will deal with such cases.

Obviously you want to teach people that going back to someone's room is not consent. That's only one part of the puzzle though.

Let's say boy meets girl on a night out. Many people witness them all over each other, she gets in a taxi with him and the taxi driver overhears suggestive conversation going both ways, the hotel CCTV has footage of them all over each other. Once they go into that hotel room there is already enough evidence for any decent defense lawyer to show that consent was strongly implied.

We can all agree that if he has sex with her without consent then that is obviously wrong. However unless there is actual evidence of violence or a witness that can testify that she did not consent in a case like this there is basically no chance of a conviction.

There has to be some element of young people's education that points out the legal situation regarding consent, sexual assault and rape. Otherwise they are just going in to these situations totally blind.

So how do we untangle that mess? We can't advise girls to not go to hotel rooms with strange men because that's victim blaming. We can teach boys not to rape but that doesn't mean that they won't do it, despite knowing it's wrong.

The idea that we can condition people not to rape is certainly worth looking into but there is no guarantee that this will ever be 100% successful.

So we are sending vulnerable young people out into a society where a certain % of people are predators or rapists. At the same time we are making it almost taboo to give them advice on how to protect themselves.

Look at a statement like "asking for it". This is an obvious defense that the accused can use as a rebuttal to the accusation. People who support the accused, or who just don't want to believe they are guilty, will also employ this defense.

In a sensible conversation we would look at this and think of ways that we can educate young people to better protect themselves. If perpetrators are going to use the "asking for it" defense then we need to equip potential victims with the know how and awareness that will allow them to prove that they were absolutely not asking for it.

Instead we have people, apparently uneducated in relevant fields of study, who are trying to turn the use of the phrase "asking for it" into some kind of shameful taboo. This is not productive at all.

What if the result of a society wide taboo on valid rebuttals to accusations and the branding of valid, or at least well intentioned, advice as "victim blaming" is simply instilling a sense of invulnerability in vulnerable people.

Then, of course, you have the bloodsuckers who will come in and use the victims stories to push their agenda, further their own careers and line their own pockets.

Does anyone think that it's a major problem here that the people who are shouting loudest, dictating what conversations are allowed, and deciding which opinions are morally right and wrong, are basically not properly qualified to be commenting on such complex social issues?

We need to replace these leeches with professional, educated, people who can use research and rational thinking to propose solutions to this particular problem. We need to provide proper education and proper support for the next generation or the problem will never be solved.

As long as the public discussion of this issue is dominated by rhetoric and hyperbole then there will never be any real progress.

Squall Leonhart · 19-02-2016 12:27PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

If she doesn't say anything of the kind, you can safely assume that she is not into it

That's a safe assumption, the only assumption to make!

This Louis CK sketch gets it perfectly;

The Black Oil · 19-02-2016 01:20PM

Lu Tze wrote: »

I haven't read the book referenced, though I have seen similar posts to the op, and newspaper articles previously. They seem to be great at highlighting problems, but also short on proposing any solutions.

Just to take one point, the low conviction rates. Would the op or anybody else like to propose a a solution for this?

Would people be comfortable with an exception being made for only one crime (rape) where the burden of proof is reduced for a conviction to be given? A crime which under current legislation, can only be commuted by one gender? The implications for men falsely accused would be enormous in this scenario. Any other suggestions?

I find I have very little time for people on any topic which just criticise and highlight problems without giving any thoughts on concepts and ideas for resolving the problems they are highlighting?

I started this thread partly because of a complaint in the sexism thread - that were was a lack of meaningful discussion from men about the way some men behave towards women.

I don't have an immediate suggestion on conviction rates, no. There are many reasons why people either don't report it or a case may not go to trial. Is the conviction rate low because so few women come forward, or because lawyers for the accused can navigate the courtroom easily and cast doubt? I don't know.

A primary aspect of Asking for It's thesis is that the odds are stacked against the victim. One particular scene in involves the family talking to a solicitor. The central revelation here was that the book of evidence prepared by the Gardai and sent to the DPP was only available to accused's legal team. I found that shocking. So, there are many elements that need to change in the legal context.

Oh, and dredging up the victim's past sexual history must be a mindfcuk.

eviltwin · 19-02-2016 02:07PM

The Black Oil wrote: »

I started this thread partly because of a complaint in the sexism thread - that were was a lack of meaningful discussion from men about the way some men behave towards women.

I don't have an immediate suggestion on conviction rates, no. There are many reasons why people either don't report it or a case may not go to trial. Is the conviction rate low because so few women come forward, or because lawyers for the accused can navigate the courtroom easily and cast doubt? I don't know.

A primary aspect of Asking for It's thesis is that the odds are stacked against the victim. One particular scene in involves the family talking to a solicitor. The central revelation here was that the book of evidence prepared by the Gardai and sent to the DPP was only available to accused's legal team. I found that shocking. So, there are many elements that need to change in the legal context.

Oh, and dredging up the victim's past sexual history must be a mindfcuk.

I don't think men should feel they need to answer to anyone on this issue. You might as well ask why some men hit their partners or shoplift or are cruel to animals. Why do men rape? They just do.

orubiru · 19-02-2016 02:47PM

The Black Oil wrote: »

I started this thread partly because of a complaint in the sexism thread - that were was a lack of meaningful discussion from men about the way some men behave towards women.

I don't have an immediate suggestion on conviction rates, no. There are many reasons why people either don't report it or a case may not go to trial. Is the conviction rate low because so few women come forward, or because lawyers for the accused can navigate the courtroom easily and cast doubt? I don't know.

A primary aspect of Asking for It's thesis is that the odds are stacked against the victim. One particular scene in involves the family talking to a solicitor. The central revelation here was that the book of evidence prepared by the Gardai and sent to the DPP was only available to accused's legal team. I found that shocking. So, there are many elements that need to change in the legal context.

Oh, and dredging up the victim's past sexual history must be a mindfcuk.

You are definitely right that the odds are heavily stacked in favor of the accused especially in cases where there is no evidence and it's one persons word against the other.

As you say, a good defense lawyer can easily negotiate these kind of cases where no evidence or eyewitness testimony exists.

How can that be fixed though? The basis of the justice system is that if you make a serious accusation towards someone then the burden of proof lands with the accuser.

If we go down the road of blocking certain defense strategies or reducing the burden of proof then it's only a matter of time before we find an increase in cases of people being wrongly convicted and an increase in cases of people abusing the system. Historically, this has all happened before.

How do you find a "middle ground" without leaving the system wide open to abuse?

I think the lack of meaningful discussion from men really comes down to the fact that it's such a small percentage of men who actually commit these crimes. If you've ever been in a room of 10 people you'll know how hard it is to have a coherent discussion, about something common like watching the rugby, whilst also including everyone. Now imagine trying to do that in a room of 100. Now imagine doing it in a room of 1,000 where the topic is something that has never been done or experienced by any person in the room. People are just going to shrug because how valuable can their input actually be?

I would suggest that if people want to figure out the motivations of rapists then the people to ask would be rapists. I'm guessing that's what Criminologists do. Feminists? Not so much. Not so qualified.

OK, so it's a fact that the majority of rapists are men. Fair enough. The idea that it's "a male problem" doesn't make sense if only a small fraction of men will ever commit the crime.

100% of plane crashes involve planes but you can pretty much guarantee that any person who's been afraid of flying has been told that the odds of their plane crashing are small. We don't criticize them for saying "not all planes".

So even if all rapists are men the odds that any given man will be a rapist are small. The same logic applies here and so people who say "not all men" are actually making a rather valid point.

The ideal goal here would be to reduce the number of rapes in Ireland to zero. If that goal cannot be achieved then you want to make sure that perpetrators are caught, convicted, and given severe punishment. Running alongside that you would want to reduce the potential for anyone to become a victim.

Right now we seem to be stuck on the question of whether or nor rape is the responsibility of "Men" as a general group.

Right now we seem to be considering hypotheses such as "Rape Culture" from people who are not qualified to propose any kind of theory on criminal behavior.

The most popular solutions are some variation on "condition men and boys not to rape". Is that a realistic goal given that the vast majority already find the very concept of rape to be abhorrent?

It would need to be very specialized conditioning to target the specific individuals who are likely to commit such crimes. So why adopt the scattergun approach of trying to condition "all men"?

Is there a part of that approach that is appealing because achieves two goals at once? It implies that "all men" are part of the problem. It also gives women a free pass on taking some responsibility.

How can you expect someone who isn't a rapist, who doesn't understand rapists, who has nothing in common with a rapist other than a singular physical attribute, to be able to sit down and have a reasonable or informed conversation on the topic?

It all leaves me wondering about the motivation of people who want to shame others for saying "not all men".

Tipperary Fairy · 19-02-2016 03:07PM

intheclouds wrote: »

The difficulty in the Ched Evans case is around whether or not she was capable of giving consent.

No the difficulty in that case was that someone decided she couldn't have been capable of giving consent, presumably as she couldn't remember where she left her bag or lost it or it was stolen.

I'm not going to get into the things that make his conviction ridiculous anyway, I was using that as a point to say that not every form of rape (at least by legal definitions) is the forceful violent type that you're saying it is, that you're saying is 'simple'.

intheclouds wrote: »

Im not suggesting that circumstances are black and white btw, there may be many shades of grey (pardon the pun) in establishing whether or not consent was given.

But you are saying that things are black and white - or simple - and straightforward.

It's almost always a matter of one versus the other in terms of whether or not consent was given. But the thing is the majority of the time, nobody asks 'do you consent?' before engaging in any intimate or sexual activities. So you can't establish whether or not consent was given in the vast majority of cases.

intheclouds wrote: »

But the fact remains that if someone does NOT give consent then it is rape.

No no no no no. I have never been asked if I want to have sex. Not once. Yet I've sex hundreds of times. Does that mean I've been raped hundreds of times? No, it doesn't. (unless I decide retrospectively that actually I didn't really like them that much after all (lol jk)).

You'll probably argue the 'implied consent' thing, and tbh I completely agree with you. there are times where things are implied, but the problem with the likes of the Ched Evans case, is you have (the possibility at least of) a girl wanting to have sex with a man, and man wanting to have sex with a girl, and them having sex, and then someone deciding he should have known she was too drunk to be able to consent to sex.

Again, there are multiple forms of 'rape' as various laws define.

intheclouds wrote: »

The swedish example is excellent, a woman consents to protected sex, but if the protection breaks and the guy knows but doesnt tell her then he has not obtained her consent for that act (ie, unprotected sex). Simple!

Sorry, are you actually serious here? Simple? Have a think about that there. He should be charged with something in that situation, but it sure as hell isn't rape, and should not be charged with rape. Rape is having sex with someone against their will. Rape is not doing every scummy thing that may surround having sex.

intheclouds wrote: »

She should be. But I think any proof of this would be very very difficult to obtain, whereas with a torn condom you have a physical piece of evidence. She could simply claim that she did take it and it didnt work (perhaps she took it at the wrong time?), or that she did take it but had an upset stomach within 3 hours and she didnt realise that might compromise it or that it simply failed (its not 100% effective) etc...

In that case you have 'evidence' that the condom split. No evidence that anyone knew about it or evidence that he didn't tell her.

And as to your reasons a woman might be able to get away with not being protected by the pill - a guy has to take full responsibility for wearing a condom and noticing if it splits, but the woman doesn't have to take responsibility for taking the pill right or knowing how to? Hmmm.

intheclouds wrote: »

Its a waste of time for a court to try and prove something like that whereas a woman who discovers a torn condom has a physical piece of evidence (and even if they dont have the condom, they will have the guys DNA in them).

She has evidence of a torn condom, which is just evidence that the condom split (though that's not even solid evidence, as the condom could probably not be proven to be from a specific guy much of the time)

So sorry, sperm (or DNA

) is proof of rape now?

intheclouds wrote: »

Whereas a torn condom is obviously comparable to no condom which was not agreed to.

A torn condom does not equal rape. I really hope this kind of logic doesn't follow to Ireland. The Ched Evans case already had me concerned enough.

Akrasia · 19-02-2016 03:26PM

The Black Oil wrote: »

The colours and sizes of the letters on that banner are raping my eyes

Is it just me, or has it been deliberately designed to cause epileptic fits?

johnnyskeleton · 19-02-2016 03:29PM

The Black Oil wrote: »

A primary aspect of Asking for It's thesis is that the odds are stacked against the victim.

This is a misconception. A criminal trial is not Victim v. Accused with binary odds between them like a kind of football match. A criminal trial involves the Prosecution setting out the evidence and a jury, if satisfied that they have proved that the Accused committed the offence beyond reasonable doubt, will convict, but otherwise won't.

If there is no conviction, it doesn't mean that the "Victim", or strictly speaking "Complainant" loses, just that they haven't made out a case beyond reasonable doubt.

One particular scene in involves the family talking to a solicitor. The central revelation here was that the book of evidence prepared by the Gardai and sent to the DPP was only available to accused's legal team.

That's not true. It's available to both the Prosecution and Defence, who will in turn send it on to their respective legal teams. The Judge can also get a copy on request.

A Complainant is a witness so they will often be shown any statement that they made which goes into the book of evidence. They will not, however, be entitled to the other statements in the book, because it's not relevant to them and to prevent them from tailoring their evidence based on what other people have said.

Basically, if a complainant says that they were in a pub until X o'clock and didn't see the accused there, but an independent witness puts them both in the pub after that time, the complainant is not entitled to advance notice of this inconsistency so that they can change their evidence to suit it.

I found that shocking. So, there are many elements that need to change in the legal context.

Why is it shocking? I'm genuinely puzzled by that. To be honest, it sounds like the type of thing that a person (not you, the author of the book) who starts with the presumption that the criminal justice system is too fair to the accused and not fair enough to the complainant and then looks for evidence to support that contention. She doesn't appear to have sought any deeper understanding of why things are the way they are, she seems to have sought out any differences and concluded that because the accused gets something and she doesn't get the same thing, there must be unfairness.

Oh, and dredging up the victim's past sexual history must be a mindfcuk.

This can only be done with the leave of the trial judge (if the defence want to do it. There is an argument that the Prosecution are at large to do so if they wish).

In effect, an accused person must satisfy the Judge that there are bona fides reasons for doing so. This goes beyond a mere character assassination attempt e.g. trying to paint a complainant as someone who is promiscuous. Leave is more likely to be refused than granted.

However, there are circumstances where it is relevant i.e. where it shows that the complainant is likely to be not telling the truth and where that happens a Judge will probably grant leave.

The Black Oil · 19-02-2016 03:43PM

ivytwine wrote: »

RE Fifty Shades, it's a dreadful book and the relationship is very unhealthy, but he gets her to sign a contract to issue her consent. Can you have clearer consent than that? I don't think so.

I haven't read Fifty Shades, that world really holds not interest for me. On the contract type issue, one of the things I heard brought up on a podcast I listen to was the possibility of recording consent, say on a smartphone. I found this a little hard to take seriously because even though it's a record, does it carry any weight, can you say it wasn't coerced? I don't know.

There's Even An App For That

Even more questionable to some experts is the bevy of mobile apps that promise to help curb assault. One that just hit the market, called We-Consent, records students agreeing to sexual activity. A breathy female voice with a British accent asks the user to "say the name of the person with whom you would like to have sexual relations." Then the app announces to the other person, that so-and-so "would like to have sexual relations with you" and asks for consent. If all goes well, the app ends with the sultry female voice announcing, "Have Fun!"

"It's a very powerful tool," says developer Michael Lissack, a former Wall Street banker turned social scientist. He's selling the app on his website, We-Consent, for $5 a year and is also trying to get schools to buy it in bulk, for all their students. Lissak says Apple has refused to sell it in its App Store, calling it "icky." But Lissack insists his app is exactly the kind of tool that's needed to change behavior.

"We need props. We need tools. We are human, This is how we make change," he says. "It's not going to happen by people saying education. No. We all took driver's ed. How many of us speed? How many of us pass on the right?"

But experts caution that as new untested products flood the market, the risk is not only that some just won't help but that some products have actually been proven to hurt.

"That scares me," says Charlene Senn, who studies sexual assault prevention at the University of Windsor in Ontario. "Money is being poured into getting those programs that are homegrown, and usually that's a bad idea."

Senn says her research suggests the most promising approach may actually be one that virtually no one is doing: teaching women ways to avoid assault. Most schools are loath to go there, fearing they'd be seen as victim-blaming. But Senn says her method of training women to recognize risk and resist assault was proven to reduce rape by 50 percent, making it an approach schools can't afford to ignore.

"We do need to make stopping sexual violence everyone's problem, and that's the long-term solution," Senn says. "But women need the tools now. They need them this year."

NPR

Here is some of Senn's work.

And Efficacy of a Sexual Assault Resistance Program for University Women

It didn't occur to me to look for this sort of research and it sounds like not everyone would be pleased that it exists.

ivytwine wrote: »

I'm female so hope it's ok to post here. I've not read Asking For It yet, I follow Louise O'Neill on Facebook and I'm starting to feel very uncomfortable about what she posts. I work and interact with a lot of guys and I don't see what herself and Una Mullaly see. I see that if a guy *is* behaving inappropriately on a night out or whatever I've seen him being steered away by his mates. That does happen. Una was trying to make a gender thing out of being verbally abused by some of Dublin's more feral inhabitants... I've male friends who've been mugged and abused by these types, absolutely not gender-based.

Well, the UCD story was a mess, whatever the truth is, I don't know. Twitter's full on aggressive on one side, group think and the investigation was a sham/how can women on campus feel safe, personal accounts of TheJournal.ie journalists saying it's 100% a gender on another.

When someone like Una or now Louise social media like this I have to wonder if they have a brother or think these things about their father. I don't like to personalise when it comes a journalist, but the fixation with gender is frustrating and counter-productive. To be fair to Louise, one of the more supportive characters in the book is Emma's brother.

anothernight · 19-02-2016 04:30PM

I don't think it is possible to have a fully rational discussion about rape until it stops being a gendered issue, used as a weapon by the extreme ideologists of both sexes.
Rape doesn't have to be violent, it isn't always perpetrated by men, and the victims aren't always women. Rape is an attack on the sexual freedom of a person, one with horrific consequences in some cases, but which is so difficult to prove, and still so shameful, that victims will often refrain from reporting it.

If rape wasn't used as a gendered weapon of rhetoric, it would be easier to educate the population about it. No, I don't mean telling boys that rape is wrong and being done with it, or telling girls that they should hang out in dark alleys by themselves. I mean creating an environment in which victims won't be scared of letting the authorities know that they have been raped. Where a victim won't feel judged, won't assume their claim will be dismissed by the police, won't think the family will side with the relative who perpetrated the rape. Conversely, if rape isn't seen as a feminist or masculinist issue, handing out fair sentences for false accusations of rape won't be construed as an "anti-woman" policy.

In many cases, it's very difficult to prove that a rape has happened, even when it might have been one of those violent types that you see in films. That's why it's so important to work on recognising rape when it does happen, so that fewer instances will fall through the gaps and go unnoticed by anyone but the victim. In my opinion, the priority should be to help victims come forward as soon as possible, and to stamp out false accusations. I honestly believe that the best way to do this is to stop treating it as an issue of gender, and start treating it the same way as murder or theft: it happens, it shouldn't happen, but what can we do about it?

The Black Oil wrote: »

I haven't read Fifty Shades, that world really holds not interest for me. On the contract type issue, one of the things I heard brought up on a podcast I listen to was the possibility of recording consent, say on a smartphone. I found this a little hard to take seriously because even though it's a record, does it carry any weight, can you say it wasn't coerced? I don't know.

As an aside, in the BDSM world, at least that which is local to me, consent is considered even more important than in non-BDSM circles. I'm not just talking about safe words, which are an important part of the more violent types of role-play. In any sane BDSM group or club, the consensus is that there should be a previous discussion (in a neutral non-sexual setting if at all possible) of what will and won't be allowed within a scene, each time a new scene will occur with each new partner. In the case of kinky longterm 24/7 relationships, contracts are often used to set out what will, in general, be considered consensual within the relationship unless otherwise stated. Consent can always be withdrawn in those cases, but if there is no further mention, the terms of the contract will decide whether consent was present or not.

Depending on the kinkiness of the relationship, a contract won't just be used for consent, but that's irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

The Black Oil · 19-02-2016 04:48PM

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

That's not true. It's available to both the Prosecution and Defence, who will in turn send it on to their respective legal teams. The Judge can also get a copy on request.

A Complainant is a witness so they will often be shown any statement that they made which goes into the book of evidence. They will not, however, be entitled to the other statements in the book, because it's not relevant to them and to prevent them from tailoring their evidence based on what other people have said.

Thanks for your response. Is what you outlined in your post available online somewhere, the legal specifics, etc?

Why is it shocking? I'm genuinely puzzled by that. To be honest, it sounds like the type of thing that a person (not you, the author of the book) who starts with the presumption that the criminal justice system is too fair to the accused and not fair enough to the complainant and then looks for evidence to support that contention. She doesn't appear to have sought any deeper understanding of why things are the way they are, she seems to have sought out any differences and concluded that because the accused gets something and she doesn't get the same thing, there must be unfairness.

Well, I guess for me it was rather like a key moment in the film In Name of Father, something about a piece of evidence not being shown to the Defence. In Asking for It, it sounded like that the book of evidence was one way traffic and that the Defence wouldn't have access to the

social media photos of the Emma being raped/or something related.

As in, the Defence didn't have the right to assess their evidential value or quality prior to trial, presumably that's what the trial is for - to weigh and test the evidence. It would be interesting to see if any lawyers have read this book. I can't think of any Irish legal bloggers, off hand.

The other thing about the book is at the end she adds a piece explaining her rationale about how things turn out. I found that a little unnecessary, if I'm honest. The story speaks for itself. The lead character is bruised throughout the book and I expect that it's written in such a way that many who read it will feel similarly afterwards. O' Neill also said that out of 20 women she spoke to only 1 went to the police, that she sees young girls playing in the park and fears for them because of the culture they're growing up in.

Why do some men commit rape?

Comments