Derrick Rose being accused of gang rape.

[PhoSita]

I sometimes feel the implication is that rape survivor advocates want accusers to be able to win criminal cases with very meager evidence, or maybe even none at all, and that we should simply accept their behavior, whatever it is, because that's in the normal realm of what happens.

I think we should definitely not jump to judgment about the behavior of a survivor.  We should begin from the assumption that the survivor is telling the truth -- at least the truth as they see it. 

This is not the same thing as putting the accused on trial and assuming from the start that they are guilty of a crime.  It's about giving support and treating the survivor as credible from the beginning, instead of approaching their claims with skepticism or even open hostility, depending on the status of the person who is being accused.


Advocating for survivors doesn't mean saying that anybody accused of rape should go to jail.  The point is that our society is very unsupportive, even hostile, towards survivors, and most claims don't even get seriously investigated, let alone prosecuted.  This would be a problem even if the legal definition of rape and sexual assault were more consistent across the board.


The NH case is a striking example because even though it was accepted that the defendant (a) had sex with the victim and (b) the victim said "no" multiple times, the only charge that stuck was statutory rape, which is a strict liability crime (meaning the consent of the victim was immaterial).

Many rape cases will come down to "he said / she said," which means that proving the charge will come down to a matter of witness credibility.  This is unavoidable.

The problem is that things like

- "She didn't seem openly upset in the days afterward"
- "She talked to the accused, and even seemed friendly toward him, in the days afterward"
- "She eventually went along with it and even seemed to enjoy it"
- "She didn't tell anybody, or go to the police, until a significant time had passed"

all get used as evidence that the survivor is an unreliable witness.

[Eja117]

I think maybe we're talking about two different issues. In terms of how society treats and thinks of self identifying rape survivors I agree we should tend to believe rather than disbelieve. There should be encouragement to feel free to speak about it if it is therapeutic to them, etc.

But in terms of actually catching and prosecuting rapists, survivors have to be encouraged to (and must realize it's important to) go to the police immediately. Go to the hospital immediately. Do not act like friends with the person for months afterwards. Realize it's ok to be cross examined in court.

This isn't going to be fixed over night.  I am also very interested in if there has been as much study done on men (possibly falsely) accused of rape, etc. Should we believe them or not believe them? What shame do they end up going through? Are there support groups and advocacy groups for them?

I just think it's a complicated phenomenon which will be very difficult to improve.

[PhoSita]

I think maybe we're talking about two different issues. In terms of how society treats and thinks of self identifying rape survivors I agree we should tend to believe rather than disbelieve. There should be encouragement to feel free to speak about it if it is therapeutic to them, etc.

But in terms of actually catching and prosecuting rapists, survivors have to be encouraged to (and must realize it's important to) go to the police immediately. Go to the hospital immediately. Do not act like friends with the person for months afterwards. Realize it's ok to be cross examined in court.

I agree, there are two different aspects here that need to be accounted for, even if in some ways they seem at odds.

We can do a better job of believing and supporting survivors without immediately rounding up a mob and publicly executing anybody accused of rape.

In a perfect world, survivors would feel empowered to identify their experience as rape right away and go to the authorities right away.  The thing is that when people focus on that, while ignoring all of the reasons why in our imperfect world many survivors don't do it, it only contributes to the problems that exist.

[Eja117]

I definitely think we can make society a better place for survivors, but I think in terms of preventing there from being so many survivors in the first place we need to encourage and lionize survivors for being aggressive about pursuing charges immediately.

Further, and maybe this is just me, but I think there's been a recent and unfortunate backlash to the whole topic lately, because of the expansion of the definition of rape. I remember hearing that maybe 1 in 3 women, will be affected by this at some point and I just wondered mathematically "Well then how many men are rapists? How many rapes does an average rapist perpetrate?" The math just seemed staggering.

But then there started to be the implication that if two people are drunk and they have sex that's rape. So...uh....did I rape my wife.....or did she rape me? Because after the company Christmas party....I mean stuff happens.  And I think unfortunately there was a major backlash against that. It seemed they were saying if a girl gets drunk and has sex then the man raped her, but it didn't seem to be applying the other way around.

I don't mind an expansion of the definition because it was overdue, but it doesn't always seem totally fairly applied.

[Csfan1984]

I definitely think we can make society a better place for survivors, but I think in terms of preventing there from being so many survivors in the first place we need to encourage and lionize survivors for being aggressive about pursuing charges immediately.

Further, and maybe this is just me, but I think there's been a recent and unfortunate backlash to the whole topic lately, because of the expansion of the definition of rape. I remember hearing that maybe 1 in 3 women, will be affected by this at some point and I just wondered mathematically "Well then how many men are rapists? How many rapes does an average rapist perpetrate?" The math just seemed staggering.

But then there started to be the implication that if two people are drunk and they have sex that's rape. So...uh....did I rape my wife.....or did she rape me? Because after the company Christmas party....I mean stuff happens.  And I think unfortunately there was a major backlash against that. It seemed they were saying if a girl gets drunk and has sex then the man raped her, but it didn't seem to be applying the other way around.

I don't mind an expansion of the definition because it was overdue, but it doesn't always seem totally fairly applied.

I see that and the concerns some men may have in terms a male rape from a woman taking advantage of a impared male. It's all difficult which is why we should not judge till all stories and facts come to light. Women should still get the benefit of the doubt as they are being penetrated technically. What real harm does it do for a male when proven falsely accused?

[Eja117]

I definitely think we can make society a better place for survivors, but I think in terms of preventing there from being so many survivors in the first place we need to encourage and lionize survivors for being aggressive about pursuing charges immediately.

Further, and maybe this is just me, but I think there's been a recent and unfortunate backlash to the whole topic lately, because of the expansion of the definition of rape. I remember hearing that maybe 1 in 3 women, will be affected by this at some point and I just wondered mathematically "Well then how many men are rapists? How many rapes does an average rapist perpetrate?" The math just seemed staggering.

But then there started to be the implication that if two people are drunk and they have sex that's rape. So...uh....did I rape my wife.....or did she rape me? Because after the company Christmas party....I mean stuff happens.  And I think unfortunately there was a major backlash against that. It seemed they were saying if a girl gets drunk and has sex then the man raped her, but it didn't seem to be applying the other way around.

I don't mind an expansion of the definition because it was overdue, but it doesn't always seem totally fairly applied.

I see that and the concerns some men may have in terms a male rape from a woman taking advantage of a impared male. It's all difficult which is why we should not judge till all stories and facts come to light. Women should still get the benefit of the doubt as they are being penetrated technically. What real harm does it do for a male when proven falsely accused?

I think it's pretty hard to prove you were falsely accused. The Duke kids missed the season I think. Typically I think the best you can hope for is acquittal, which is very different from proven falsely accused

[mgent]

Again....I admit I do not understand the implication here.....is the idea that in a he said/she said the jury should have found him guilty despite the part where she was nice to him for months after, or is the idea that they shouldn't have considered that as evidence in his favor?

I sometimes feel the implication is that rape survivor advocates want accusers to be able to win criminal cases with very meager evidence, or maybe even none at all, and that we should simply accept their behavior, whatever it is, because that's in the normal realm of what happens.

it is these sorts of questions and doubts that has historically contributed to inhibiting victims of rape from coming forward, along with other reasons. add that 4 out of 5 rapists are known to the victim and it can add to the complexity of the situation of reporting. (many victims state that they are afraid of reporting someone they know since others may not believe them and this may enable the rapist to repeat the act.)

if a person is subjected to violence such as rape that person is traumatized to be sure. add now a society wherein the victim is questioned, challenged, and testimony is doubted from the start. increasingly society is moving away from this practice of questioning the victims' motives, thankfully. (in a mugging, do we ask the victim question such as: "did you have money that might have invited such an assault? did you resist being mugged, or did you agree to it?"; or the public excuse the mugger if such was the case?)

if we add a healthy dash of humiliation and public skepticism and it becomes obvious why 68% of all rapes are never reported; 98% of rapists never spend a day in jail; 44% of victims are under 18 years old and are less empowered to speak.

also, therapies/counselors/et al have established that the number of rape victims who lie about the rape are miniscule. almost all of them speak truthfully when they speak of the crime. yet so many people in society doubt, question, and challenge the victims.

Haha, seriously?  What the heck?

[Roy H.]

Off topic from Derrick Rose, but on-topic regarding blaming the victim, etc.

https://www.yahoo.com/music/chrissie-hynde-under-fire-suggesting-women-dress-provocatively-174756699.html

Just one more layer to the psychology of sexual assault, where a victim is blaming herself (and other victims).  There's probably a modicum of truth to what she says -- everyone should take steps to protect themselves, and should be smart about their surroundings and actions, etc. -- but overall she seems to miss the mark.  That said, who am I to tell a victim of gang rape how to feel?

[Eja117]

I'd be curious as to how often rape victims win in civil court and if they typically sue the whole gang or just one guy. And also whether Rose's other guys are being sued.

[D Dub]

Again....I admit I do not understand the implication here.....is the idea that in a he said/she said the jury should have found him guilty despite the part where she was nice to him for months after, or is the idea that they shouldn't have considered that as evidence in his favor?

I sometimes feel the implication is that rape survivor advocates want accusers to be able to win criminal cases with very meager evidence, or maybe even none at all, and that we should simply accept their behavior, whatever it is, because that's in the normal realm of what happens.

it is these sorts of questions and doubts that has historically contributed to inhibiting victims of rape from coming forward, along with other reasons. add that 4 out of 5 rapists are known to the victim and it can add to the complexity of the situation of reporting. (many victims state that they are afraid of reporting someone they know since others may not believe them and this may enable the rapist to repeat the act.)

if a person is subjected to violence such as rape that person is traumatized to be sure. add now a society wherein the victim is questioned, challenged, and testimony is doubted from the start. increasingly society is moving away from this practice of questioning the victims' motives, thankfully. (in a mugging, do we ask the victim question such as: "did you have money that might have invited such an assault? did you resist being mugged, or did you agree to it?"; or the public excuse the mugger if such was the case?)

if we add a healthy dash of humiliation and public skepticism and it becomes obvious why 68% of all rapes are never reported; 98% of rapists never spend a day in jail; 44% of victims are under 18 years old and are less empowered to speak.

also, therapies/counselors/et al have established that the number of rape victims who lie about the rape are miniscule. almost all of them speak truthfully when they speak of the crime. yet so many people in society doubt, question, and challenge the victims.

Haha, seriously?  What the heck?

Gotta give my man hwangjini a TP for yet another thoughtful post.   

Can you help me understand, mgent, what exactly you find so funny about his comments?

[PhoSita]

I definitely think we can make society a better place for survivors, but I think in terms of preventing there from being so many survivors in the first place we need to encourage and lionize survivors for being aggressive about pursuing charges immediately.

We also need to do a better job of placing responsibility on men for, first, knowing what consent is and is not, and second, not pursuing sex with women who aren't in a condition to freely give consent.

But then there started to be the implication that if two people are drunk and they have sex that's rape. So...uh....did I rape my wife.....or did she rape me? Because after the company Christmas party....I mean stuff happens.  And I think unfortunately there was a major backlash against that. It seemed they were saying if a girl gets drunk and has sex then the man raped her, but it didn't seem to be applying the other way around.

That's a bit of a gray area, and you're right that this becomes problematic because drunk sex is such a normalized activity in our society.

I think the situation in a long term relationship makes it harder to nail down.  I am no stranger to such circumstances myself, and I can say for myself that I've never felt uncomfortable about it after the fact.  But I think the bottom line there is that it's important to have a conversation with your partner so that you know you're on the same page. 

Talking about it and being on the same page isn't really possible when we're talking about a random hookup, so I think the bottom line there is that you really just can't be sure how the other person will feel about it in the morning (or that they'll remember it).  Do you want to put yourself in that position?  Do you want to put the other person in that position? 

I think we should be challenging people to ask those tough questions a lot more often, and in general to pay attention to just how drunk the other person may be. 

[Eja117]

I definitely think hook up culture is the close relative of rape culture, and I think it's awkward modern feminism embraces one and attacks the other, and acts like they're totally exclusive.
Either you reject them both, or you go back to the way drunk sex isn't rape if it's consensual while happening. Or if they're both drunk then they're both rapists.  Personally I think most women see the difference and that's not really what they're upset about overall.

[MBunge]

I sometimes feel the implication is that rape survivor advocates want accusers to be able to win criminal cases with very meager evidence, or maybe even none at all, and that we should simply accept their behavior, whatever it is, because that's in the normal realm of what happens.

I think we should definitely not jump to judgment about the behavior of a survivor.  We should begin from the assumption that the survivor is telling the truth -- at least the truth as they see it. 

And that's how you end up with the Rolling Stone scandal.

It's very hard challenging/changing the sexist/patriarchal mindset that is biased against rape victims without veering into guilty until proven innocent territory.

Mike

[D.o.s.]

I sometimes feel the implication is that rape survivor advocates want accusers to be able to win criminal cases with very meager evidence, or maybe even none at all, and that we should simply accept their behavior, whatever it is, because that's in the normal realm of what happens.

I think we should definitely not jump to judgment about the behavior of a survivor.  We should begin from the assumption that the survivor is telling the truth -- at least the truth as they see it. 

And that's how you end up with the Rolling Stone scandal.

It's very hard challenging/changing the sexist/patriarchal mindset that is biased against rape victims without veering into guilty until proven innocent territory.

Mike

This is a good post and I agree with it. Like has been alluded to earlier, the Duke Lacrosse team were basically operating under a presumption of guilt, despite the fact that they were ultimately cleared. Were they a hideous gaggle of entitled Edited.  Profanity and masked profanity are against forum rules and may result in discipline.s? Almost certainly, but that's not a crime (unfortunately), and I think judgement on either side about things like this ("why didn't you go to the police" "what were you wearing" all the way to "lax bros are scumbags they obviously did it") in the absence of facts is the wrong thing to do.

What complicates things immensely is that this doesn't happen in a vacuum, since most of these sorts of situations, from my understanding, occur between friends/acquaintances/known entities, rather than strangers.

[PhoSita]

I sometimes feel the implication is that rape survivor advocates want accusers to be able to win criminal cases with very meager evidence, or maybe even none at all, and that we should simply accept their behavior, whatever it is, because that's in the normal realm of what happens.

I think we should definitely not jump to judgment about the behavior of a survivor.  We should begin from the assumption that the survivor is telling the truth -- at least the truth as they see it. 

And that's how you end up with the Rolling Stone scandal.

It's very hard challenging/changing the sexist/patriarchal mindset that is biased against rape victims without veering into guilty until proven innocent territory.

Mike

I think there's a middle ground between "Not assuming somebody is a liar" and "Writing a one sided article in a national publication without fully investigating sources and evidence."


Again, I think we are all generally smart enough to separate what passes for burden of proof in a court of law and what we owe to survivors of sexual violence who aren't, in reality, especially prone to lying about being raped just to get all of the "positive attention" that survivors are assured of getting in our society.