Did you know....that 3 out of 100 rapes actually get prosecuted?
The following link explains:
http://www.rainn.org/news-room/97-of-every-100-rapists-receive-no-p... [admin edit:
97 of Every 100 Rapists Receive No Punishment, RAINN Analysis Shows
While the percentage of rapes reported to police has risen in recent years, a majority — 54% — still are not reported, according to the Justice Department. But increasing reporting alone won't solve the problem: only about one out of four reported rapes leads to an arrest, and only about one out of four arrests leads to a felony conviction and incarceration.
RAINN's new analysis is based on the most recent available Justice Department data, using an average of the five most recent years when available. Based on older data, RAINN had previously estimated that about 6% of rapists ultimately go to prison for their crime.
"This staggering statistic sends a clear message to offenders that they can commit this horrible crime and get away with it. The single most important thing we can do to prevent rape is to put more rapists in prison," notes Scott Berkowitz, RAINN's president and founder. "That's why we have made it a priority to pass the SAFER Act and eliminate the backlog of untested DNA evidence from open rape cases." [/admin edit]
How can this be in the US?
Aren't we supposed to serve justice?
We have a long way to go.
Ladies keep your pepper spray close, and take no shit.
@Belle Rose - You've heard "statutory rape," I'm sure. That's sex with a person under the age of sexual consent, which can be as low as 14 in the US, but more typically is 18. "Statutory rape" means basically "rape according to the law" as opposed to violent/assaultive rape.
To answer your last paragraph first, "roofies" are generally slipped into a drink without the knowledge of the victim.
If a guy and girl sit down and polish off a bottle of wine and sex happens, is one party more responsible than the other? Well, I might say that she is because she is putting herself in a situation where she is more at risk because (a) women for a variety of reasons tend to get more drunk on the same quantity of alcohol, (b) women in general are less physically capable if a tussle happens, and (c) because she's the one who can get pregnant.
I don't know what to say about a female who is unable to say "no." I don't see how the male can be held legally responsible in such a situation.
I actually did not specify any gender in my statement. This should apply equally to male, female, gender queer, and trans victims.
The sad reality is that A LOT of people get rapped and do not speak about it. I don't see what is wrong with asking the person that you are with if they would like you to touch them or have any form of intercourse with them.
Rape is not always when someone is beaten and gagged and raped. Rape can happen based on pressure or fear or shame. It is still rape. And it is still violent. And just because your partner said yes to have sex, does not mean that they can't change their mind during it. If your partner does not say yes to sex, that is a problem (whether woman or man or gender queer or trans folk).
Demanding explicit consent does not have anything to do with the female gender. The way you perceived the argument was gendered. You assumed that I was talking about consent in reference to women alone, and based on that you assumed that consent somehow makes women more childish? Mind you that children cannot consent anyway (yes from a child is still a no).
Well, I might say that she is because she is putting herself in a situation where she is more at risk because (a) women for a variety of reasons tend to get more drunk on the same quantity of alcohol, (b) women in general are less physically capable if a tussle happens, and (c) because she's the one who can get pregnant.
That is extremely ridiculous. First, are you speaking about sex or rape? And why are you only speaking about heterosexual relationships? Rape and sex do happen among other genders... If two people (or more in this case) are drunk, i would think that would mean that consent is required on both sides. Now if consented sex happens, I don't see how either of them would be more responsible than the other. If rape happens, I don't see how the woman is more responsible than the man. It's funny how you are applying the very same mentality of religious conservatives who force women to wear burqas and to not leave their homes because apparently they are weaker? You don't see the misogyny in that at all? Because according to you, for a woman to avoid rape (or at least be able to have her rape counted as rape) she would have to refrain from drinking (because he weaker body cannot handle it?), she would have to not surround herself by men (because apparently women are generally physically weaker then men... haha... define female please.) lest he/they (who apparently is not human enough to control himself and not use physical strength to coerce someone into sex) break into a fit and decide to rape the woman, and perhaps get rid of her uterus (because apparently you're more responsible when you're the one who has to bare the impact?)....???
Let's not forget, you are only talking about heterosexual relationships, between two cis people. If you were to calculate in the true definition of gender and sexual orientation, your entire "arguments" (I don't know, are they really arguments?) would fall.
Furthermore, yes some females, males, gender queer and trans folks are unable to say no in so many different situations. And sadly, rapists are more often than not, get away with it, bearing no legal responsibility. If you are in a situation where you feel unsafe saying no, then it is a situation of no consent. If you were in a situation where you are not capable of giving a conscious answer (be it yes or no), then you are in a situation of no consent.
I would suggest these sources for you to look over before replying.
This person works with victims of abuse and is a rape surviver: http://feminishblog.tumblr.com/search/consent
This is just a few articles about rape and consent:
On gender and sex:
I don't need to consult the DOJ to dislike the definition. I'm not sure what your point is. It couldn't be that because it's the DOJ definition it's a good definition. Only God's pronouncements are true because He said so.
Belle- I can perfectly understand that but it is still a bad definition as a woman who has had anything to drink(2 or 3 beers, not even black out drunk) is by definition unable to give informed consent due to being intoxicated. That means that even if she does give consent and is all over the man she can still turn around the next day and charge him with rape. I mean have you never had consensual sex while being even the slightest bit drunk or high? If so you were technically raped then no matter how much consent you gave at the time.
Or what about if this happens to a man. There was one time when me and some friends went out clubbing. My one friend got rather drunk and was on xtc at the time when he met an older woman who was not drinking as she had to drive home. One thing led to another with them all over each other and he ended up sleeping with her. Now since he was drunk and high( even though he was not in the blackout stage) he was legally unable to give he's informed consent even though he was all over her and gave plenty of consent that night . Now would it have been right if the next morning he had charged her with rape, ruining her life, sending her kids to foster care and sending her to jail where she would have likely been violently raped?
And it can happen between a man and another man... and a woman with a penis and a man... and so on. Talking about sex in a gendered manner (especially about rape) really closes our minds to a lot. I really think you need to look more into gender identity and sexual and romantic orientations before making judgement.
Having any drunk consented sex is not necessarily rape, but it can be if it was unwanted.
Again you are assuming that people get up after having sex and decide to sue their partners. Why do we always look at victims as if they were the manipulative aggressors? How often do rape charges even happen? How often are innocent men charged with rape? Well let's look at all the lovely college rape cases since 2010 and look at how they are portrayed in the media. It seems to make you think that all convicted rapists must be innocent (at least the ones who had a potentially good career because they come from upper class white families?lol). However, if you looked at the case you'd realize that it is one fucked up situation... like the case where a passed out girl was raped and recorded and people actually laughed and watched and tweeted and called her a slut for being raped with she was passed out... this is in the US. I don't know much about the UK. So this whole idea of rape victims has got to go away. Chances are, if unwanted sex happened, the victim will not even want to speak about it. This is factual. Now the chances that an innocent man will be convicted of rape, do exist, but are very slim (and are often due to politicized nature of the judicial system not because rape victims have unequal powers over their rapists... it will just so happen that most of these men are from lower class, the victim was white or have a criminal record or come from a marginalized area or group). So it is very unlikely that people will abuse this law to get at their sex partners... because well, most rape cases are often unrecorded because people do not report them.