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.
...even with this law there are tons more woman who are raped and their rapist gets away with it.
It's a valued legal principle that it's far better to let a crime go unpunished than to convict an innocent person.
If that was the case then we would convict no one as we know statistically that there are plenty of innocent people in jail.
No, Rocky, we ideally only convict people who meet the applicable standards of proof as determined by a jury.
I think it is a bit unfair to accuse me of misogyny though. I just don't like being legally classified as a rapist just because i have slept with a girlfriend when both of us were drunk/high even though it was entirely consensual and we were not even all that drunk/high.
I can understand why this law exists, but it does mean any guy who has had sex with a woman after she had anything to drink( no matter how little) is legally a rapist. Even if it was entirely consensual .
I'm not accusing you personally. I simply said that this is a misogynistic perspective. I really don't like to label people based on their ideas and perspectives and opinions because these things change.
We simply cannot dismiss an argument because we don't "like being classified" that way. The reality is that your girlfriend may have been raped by you. She may have woken up one morning next to you and realized that she was raped. She may not have talked about it. And not liking it does not make it any less real or make you any less responsible. You may have also had been raped by a person while drunk... excuse my explicitness but an erection does not necessarily mean that a person wants to engage in sex. I understand that people are not children, but it is extremely difficult to give consent and make decisions while drunk... I mean can you testify in court, sign a legal contract, drive...? Why do we look at rape like it's less important than these things? People drink and drive all the time, but just because people do it, that doesn't mean that what they're doing isn't wrong. Same goes to people having drunk sex.
Not every guy who had sex with a woman who had something to drink is a rapist, but every man who had unwanted sex with a woman who had something to drink and was therefore unable to consciously refuse could be. So the reality is, if it was not unwanted, your sex partner will not report it so you don't even have to worry about the classification. However, it could have been unwanted and your sex partner could be too afraid to speak about it, so it is best to make sure that your partner consents and that you both do not get drunk before sex. I, on the other hand, should not have to wake up naked next to a man that I had a few drinks with... whether he's a stranger or my boyfriend. I should not have to have flashbacks of that night and how uncomfortable and unsafe and hurt I felt.
In terms of the law, it could use a lot of changes. I'm not an expert, but a few feminist and lgbtq' groups have been pushing for certain demands and changes that I think you should check out.
Leila-Where have i ever once said having sex with a woman that was not consensual was not rape?
I am simply arguing against over vague US laws in some states .That law can even be argued to be misogynistic as men who have been drinking, even considerably, are able to consent to sex while a woman cannot give the same consent after even one or two drinks.
Here In the UK the law says that woman have just as much right to consent to having sex while drunk as a man. Obviously if they are incapacitated or passed out due to intoxication it is a different story, but that is not what i have been arguing against at all.
I'm not sure what you're trying to say about the legal age and consensual sex. Could you please clarify? sorry.
@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?