How would you feel if your partner confessed that they had raped someone?

[enchain]

What if was a woman who raped an under aged boy? There was an list of 45 female teachers who had sex with their male students. The youngest was 12 and majority were 14 years old. These women were convicted of having sex with a minor. So are these women be considered rapists?
Could a partner forgive it?

 

[Pachet]

What if was a woman who raped an under aged boy? There was an list of 45 female teachers who had sex with their male students. The youngest was 12 and majority were 14 years old. These women were convicted of having sex with a minor. So are these women be considered rapists?
Could a partner forgive it?

Interesting question.

What if it's a 15 year old girl and a 40 year old man, and the girl never had a problem with it and STILL doesn't have a problem with it. Is that still rape? Is the 15 year olds perception of the event (that she wasn't coerced, she wanted to be there) valid at all? Is it valid now that she's 40 and still feels the same way?

 

[njlauren]

Interesting question.

What if it's a 15 year old girl and a 40 year old man, and the girl never had a problem with it and STILL doesn't have a problem with it. Is that still rape? Is the 15 year olds perception of the event (that she wasn't coerced, she wanted to be there) valid at all? Is it valid now that she's 40 and still feels the same way?

Not really an interesting question, because though they are somewhat predicated on the same thing, adult rape and statutory rape are very different.

With adult rape, someone charged with raping another adult is accused of forcing them to have sex without their consent, that the victim has the full ability to consent but was denied that (whether it was via threat of violence, blackmail, drugs/alcohol, physically incapacitated), that is rape.

With statutory rape, the victim (an underage person) is assumed not to be able go give consent to having sex with an adult (more on that later), because children psychologically have hard time saying no to adults, whom they are wired to see as 'parental figures'...a 40 year old man with a 15 year old girl is going to be 'daddy' in some ways, and that power means she (or he) in effect cannot easily say no....and yes, some 15 year olds are mature enough to make decisions like that, but it is impossible to weed out who can and who can't (the same way some 15 year olds are mature enough to be given driver's licenses, but in many states they limit the age to 17 because they feel on average a typical under 17 isn't responsible enough)....so what the child felt is meaningless.

On the other hand, an under age person will not feel the same way about a peer, and statutory rape laws were not supposed to prosecute a 16 year old boy for having sex with a 15 year old, but the bible thumpers seized on this to use it to 'stamp out' 'fornication' and all the other stupidity their religion brings them. Intelligent states have romeo and juliet clauses that look at age gaps, and a 15 year old with a 17 year old fits the bill, or a 18 year old senior with a 16 year old junior (varies), beause someone close to you in age is not going to be a parental figure, they are a peer.

As far as what the 40 year old woman feels about her 15 year old self, it is irrelevant, the victim in statury rape doesn't sit there and say "oooh, he is my daddy, I must obey him" or "oooh, she is mommy, have to bet her", to them it feels like they are consenting (especially the adolescent boy with the hots for the adult woman, where they think that makes them hot shit), and with age you don't suddenly look back at your emotions when you were 15 and say "you know, I saw him as daddy/mommy", you remember you wanted to have sex with them......

I wish they had not called it statutory rape to be honest, to keep the two distinct, and simply call it underage sexual activity. The one thing rape and statutory rape have in common is both can fuck up the victims royally.....

 

[Pachet]

Not really an interesting question

Oh, sorry. I thought it was interesting. My bad.

 

[Primalex]

What is it you're trying to tell us with all this hate Stag?? Do you see any posts here which disagree that technically, a woman can rape a man?

Actually yes, there was, which triggered the response. Of course it was worded more nicely, that a guy needs to be aroused to get an erection, which merely means, the guy has to like what happens and if he likes what happens, it's not rape, right?

 

[Primalex]

What if was a woman who raped an under aged boy? There was an list of 45 female teachers who had sex with their male students. The youngest was 12 and majority were 14 years old. These women were convicted of having sex with a minor. So are these women be considered rapists?

By society? No.

They can sit down in a talk show and talk about love that is between them and their underage boys and how mature in reality they are and the audience is not trying to kill them.

 

[stickygirl]

Oh, sorry. I thought it was interesting. My bad.

It's just that the law is already well documented:
http://www.shouselaw.com/statutory_rape.html

This has become the thread where we talk about a woman force-feeding viagra to a man, splinting his dick and raping him. Anything along those lines is good

 

[Bramblethorn]

Interesting question.

What if it's a 15 year old girl and a 40 year old man, and the girl never had a problem with it and STILL doesn't have a problem with it. Is that still rape? Is the 15 year olds perception of the event (that she wasn't coerced, she wanted to be there) valid at all? Is it valid now that she's 40 and still feels the same way?

True story: I had a friend who suffered from debilitating chronic pain for years. It was heartbreaking to watch; she went from doctor to doctor without getting a useful diagnosis, just prescriptions for meds that helped with the pain but made her feel like a zombie.

Then one day somebody driving too fast rear-ended her in traffic... and the pain went away. Maybe it was a pinched nerve and by some fluke the impact realigned her spine in just the right way, all I know is I got my friend back happy and healthy.

But the other guy is still a reckless driver who ought to be ticketed. He had no way of knowing that this was one time when speeding would have a positive outcome; that sort of behaviour is far more likely to cause injury and pain than to cure it.

Same principle here. It may well be possible for a 15-year-old to have a non-harmful or even positive sexual relationship with a 40-year-old. But without a crystal ball it's hard to tell whether this is going to be one of those times, so we can only make decisions based on the odds... which aren't good.

 

[Dyslexicea]

I don't agree with this. A drunk driver has to take responsibility because they actually got behind the wheel and drove. The laws around that are seriously lacking too, in my opinion.

Someone who is raped is not the responsible party. It sounds like you are implying that if someone gets drunk, it is their fault if they get raped. Is that what you are saying?

I will say I have struggled with these thoughts over the years due to my own experience with rape. If both people are intoxicated, and one says no, I still believe it is rape. But how strongly can you blame the drunk person who rapes you when their facilities are limited by alcohol? If we blame and prosecute them for getting behind the wheel and driving, then shouldn't we be able to blame and prosecute them for rape? Sometimes I am not sure where I stand on this. Some days I blame the man who raped me, and some days I think we were both fucked up and didn't know what was happening. Although even drunk and saying no I knew what was happening, so shouldn't he have known?

Yes he should have known! If you said no he knew! I'm tried of hearing this kind of rape is a grey area.

For your own mental health you do need to talk to someone about your rape.

This may help.
Rainn(Rape Abuse & Incest National Network) Get Help Now webpage.

You can find a local counseling center, phone support or online support and your privacy is protected.

 

[Dyslexicea]

What exactly do you consider a serious response?

Do we lack a "serious response" when a 6 year old is charged with first-degree sexual assault?

Do we lack a "serious response" when a guy has sex with his girlfriend three weeks before her age of consent, gets registered as sex offender and then killed by an anti-rape fanatic?

How this for "very serious response" to sexual assault in the good old US of A. 97% of rapist never spend one day in jail.

 

[Dyslexicea]

What if was a woman who raped an under aged boy? There was an list of 45 female teachers who had sex with their male students. The youngest was 12 and majority were 14 years old. These women were convicted of having sex with a minor. So are these women be considered rapists?
Could a partner forgive it?

I'm going to respond in a gender neutral way. Teacher and victim meaning male or female, No I could never forgive this teacher, I would never knowingly be in a relationship with a teacher who could violate her/his students trust, using his/her authority over her/his victim to satisfy their own selfish sexual needs.

Being I can't think of a worse term, at this time, to apply to this type of teacher, I'll call him/her a rapist.

 

[Primalex]

How this for "very serious response" to sexual assault in the good old US of A. 97% of rapist never spend one day in jail.

Why do you shut your brain down after these two statements already? Or are you really implying that those 97% (not 96.5?) are running around free because we don't take rape serious?


(As a side note: Organizations that make those statistics should have at least a basic understanding of the legal system. Neither an arrest nor a detention is a prerequisite for a trial. The Fifth Amendment has no exception clause for citizens suspected of rape.)

Okay, let's add some more reality to this statistic:

Out of 100 rapes only 46 are reported.
Why do you think this is caused by "the system not taking it serious enough"?


Out of 100 rapes only 12 lead to an arrest.
Note how it says "out of 100 rapes"? This is a smart statistical trick to make the other number look very very small. But of course, correct it should be:
Out of 46 reported rapes 12 lead to an arrest - or in other terms: Every 4th reported rape leads to an arrest. This is actually not bad, compared with other crimes.

Anyway, are 34 are not arrested, because nobody cares? This is very unlikely.

Reasons why there are no more arrests:

a) There is no way to arrest someone if the offender is unknown. If there is no DNA or no DNA match and the rapist is not someone you know, who is there to arrest?

b) There is no reason to arrest if the offender is complying. If you know the rapist, police will usually interrogate the offender first and try to get his/her DNA without force. Once the DNA is secured, there is a fair chance that there is no remand. What for?

c) Even if there is an arrest warrant, the person still needs to be found. Check how many unserved warrants are there. This is sad. But this problem is true for all crimes, not just rape.

Out of 100 rapes 9 lead to prosecution. Out of 100 rapes 5 lead to a felony conviction.

So, 4 lead to a misdemeanor conviction or no conviction. Again it implies that there is something wrong. The jury was not convinced that there was a rape. Did they take rape not serious enough or did they consider the evidence not strong enough? Should we change the legal system that we sentence people although the jury is not convinced, just because the charge is 'rape'? Is this really desirable?

 

[Dyslexicea]

This is a really interesting post.

I can tell you certainly that I would NOT have had sex with her while I was sober, and I said "NO" quite clearly to her advances many times throughout the night, although obviously eventually I gave in.

I didn't consider how similar this is to the rape scenario presented earlier.

I just have to say it, you are so very, very hot, like yummy, sexy, beautiful hot! OMG somebody shoot me I just told a dude he was hot. More importantly I like your mind at least the part of it I see here. I think if I met you in real life we could be friends but let me warn you, I could never get drunk enough to have sex with you and I do carry concealed.

Maybe the scenario is similar but only you can determine if you had been raped or not. For me it really boils down to force, threat of force, fear or some type coercion. You did say no but if later you decided what the fuck I want/need to get my rocks off and her vagina is as good as any, it's not rape.

It saddens me when I read stories like ecstaticsub's and it doesn't really matter if we label her experience as rape or not, the effect for ecstaticsub was the same, her blaming herself is the same as a victim of forcible rape, her never ever getting completely over the experience is the same. What happened to ecstaticsub isn't just about the rape culture, it is cultural rape, rape of our equally, rape of our rights to our own bodies, rape of our intrinsic value as human beings.

Stag brought up the point about support of men, something we do need but I'll be damned if I'm going to beg for it, I won't. I won't change who I am to be the nice little girl who has to let you lead the way. I'm not going to change my feminist beliefs to suit you, to sugar coat it or to weaken it. If that's what it takes to get your support then take your ball and go home.

Support me like the privileged white young women and men who joined the freedom riders did. They didn't ask a black person to beg for their help. Most of them didn't even have black friends. They got on those buses, they risked their lives because it was the right thing to do, it was the just thing to do and it was the moral thing to do. If you can't see that, you really aren't ready to see us as your equal.

Today it is the 50th anniversary of the March on Washington, some see it as a day of celebration, I see it as a day of sadness, we should all see it as a day of shame because we aren't close to racial equality. Racial equality! Gender equality! We won't get there if so many of you want to take your ball and go home. None of this is about me being nice to you, you being nice to me. If you want a just society, if you want a color blind society, if you want a society based on equality and respect, if you want respect between women and men you have no choice but to work for that goal.

 

[Dyslexicea]

(As a side note: Organizations that make those statistics should have at least a basic understanding of the legal system. Neither an arrest nor a detention is a prerequisite for a trial. The Fifth Amendment has no exception clause for citizens suspected of rape.)

You can find all the statistics published by the FBI, we all know just how misandrist the FBI are. Of course for a man who seem to think as you do, there really isn't such a thing as rape.

Let me point out to you, being I do know a little bit about our legal system. Justice is not about the rule of law, nor is it about the police not doing their jobs, nor is it about the prosecutor allowing a rapist to plead to a lesser crime, nor is it about a judge who gives a lenient sentence.

It isn't justice that women won't report rapes to police because the legal system puts the victim on trial more so than the rapist.

It surely isn't justice that tens of thousands of rape kits go unprocessed in this country. Just maybe if they were processed more serial rapist would be prosecuted.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Why do you shut your brain down after these two statements already? Or are you really implying that those 97% (not 96.5?) are running around free because we don't take rape serious?....

...So, 4 lead to a misdemeanor conviction or no conviction. Again it implies that there is something wrong. The jury was not convinced that there was a rape. Did they take rape not serious enough or did they consider the evidence not strong enough? Should we change the legal system that we sentence people although the jury is not convinced, just because the charge is 'rape'? Is this really desirable?

here's a perfect place for a male to step in and take over the discussion. I am not being sarcastic when I say that I would really appreciate a demonstration of the kind of diplomacy I should be striving for.

 

[Primalex]

Let me point out to you, being I do know a little bit about our legal system.

This makes your statements even more depressing.

Justice is not about the rule of law, nor is it about the police not doing their jobs, nor is it about the prosecutor allowing a rapist to plead to a lesser crime, nor is it about a judge who gives a lenient sentence.

The legal system is not about justice. It's about establishing a fair framework, within individuals and groups can choose their own values in the society. It defines right and wrong. Justice - a great word, but what does it mean for the case of a 6yr old that gets kidnapped, raped and killed? What do you put on the scales of Lady Justice to create a balance for all the pain and suffering the child did endure, for all the pain and suffering of all the people that knew the child?

We cannot hand out Justice - the best we can do is to try our best to prevent that this happens again and we have to accept that even the best we can do will not prevent it altogether.

It isn't justice that women won't report rapes to police because the legal system puts the victim on trial more so than the rapist.

It isn't justice when innocent people are jailed.

It surely isn't justice that tens of thousands of rape kits go unprocessed in this country. Just maybe if they were processed more serial rapist would be prosecuted.

Right. But as I said, the backlog is not just rape kits or rape cases. The DNA backlog 2009 was around 100k samples. It is justice when we prefer to solve a rape case over a homicide case?

 

[enchain]

enchain's question

I'm going to respond in a gender neutral way. Teacher and victim meaning male or female, No I could never forgive this teacher, I would never knowingly be in a relationship with a teacher who could violate her/his students trust, using his/her authority over her/his victim to satisfy their own selfish sexual needs.

Being I can't think of a worse term, at this time, to apply to this type of teacher, I'll call him/her a rapist.

Thank-you for your answer, as male, it really good to know that there should be no bias on protecting children. There are people who do not think that an assault like this would harm these young boys. Sometimes I believe we lose sight of this in the gender strife.
If we want change then we have to educate the young minds to treat all people with respect and kindness. With this maybe we beat down the barriers of hate and intolerance. I guess a little bit off topic and sorry for the rant.

 

[xxxLunaxxx]

Yes he should have known! If you said no he knew! I'm tired of hearing this kind of rape is a grey area.

For your own mental health you do need to talk to someone about your rape.

This may help.
Rainn(Rape Abuse & Incest National Network) Get Help Now webpage.

You can find a local counseling center, phone support or online support and your privacy is protected.

Thank you for your concern, but I have talked about and dealt with it. I don't really see all rapes of this kind in a grey area, but rather just my specific incident. He did acknowledge afterwards what he did was wrong and I truly believe he was shamed and full of remorse. Of course I don't think this is the case in all situations, and maybe I just feel this way because in my case the man in question was a current friend and one time love interest.

I guess I was just thinking back to the OP's original question. My answer would not be a cut and dry "I'm out of here" type of response. I would want to know the circumstances.

This does not mean I am condoning what my rapist did. I never spoke with or saw him again after his initial apologies and I was pretty screwed up by it for awhile. But knowing him, I also imagine he was too. I don't know. Maybe I am alone in this, but I question if he did what he did simply because the alcohol caused him to think I wanted sex. Yes, he is still responsibile because he chose to drink. But I don't automatically see him as a horrible, despicable person. Maybe that is just because we were friends at one time.

Anyways, these are just my ramblings on my own experience. I'm not trying to offend anyone else or their way of thinking.

 

[Primalex]

If we blame and prosecute them for getting behind the wheel and driving,

This is actually a hot topic and has a lot of interesting branches. For example, what is with a diabetic who fails to eat properly?

The consensus is that there is a DUI with intent and without. The DUI without intent does not punish the willful driving (because, as you recognized, a drunk does not necessarily do something willful), but punishes the willful negligence of preventing a possible DUI; it punishes that you didn't take precautions _before_ drinking - asking someone else to drive for you, handing the keys to the barkeeper, whatever.

Making the sober moment as the one that counts does bring its own problems though, because it means that someone can be guilty for a crime, even though he committed it while being unconscious. Which doesn't sound right either.

then shouldn't we be able to blame and prosecute them for rape?

Applying the DUI logic to rape does not quite fit here. Can we really hold the person responsible for not properly preventing rape? I already have trouble to come up with reasonable precautions.

 

[BrightlyGo]

It sounds like you are implying that if someone gets drunk, it is their fault if they get raped. Is that what you are saying?

No, not at all. Rather, someone who willingly gets drunk should still be responsible for crimes they commit while drunk. Thus the drunk driving example.

Doing something less than prudent that makes you an easier target for a criminal (like forgetting to lock your window, say), is not a crime and should not excuse the crime, whether you're sober or drunk when you make the mistake shouldn't matter.

But how strongly can you blame the drunk person who rapes you when their facilities are limited by alcohol? If we blame and prosecute them for getting behind the wheel and driving, then shouldn't we be able to blame and prosecute them for rape?

/Yes/, blame someone who committed a crime after willfully getting drunk every bit as much as if they'd never touched a drop. Yes, prosecute them for that crime. No, do not make any 'allowances' for their intoxication.

Although even drunk and saying no I knew what was happening, so shouldn't he have known?

Drunk and saying 'no' is still saying 'no.' If he was too drunk to understand 'no,' that's his responsibility, for getting that drunk.

 

[Felonious1]

This is a really interesting post.

I can tell you certainly that I would NOT have had sex with her while I was sober, and I said "NO" quite clearly to her advances many times throughout the night, although obviously eventually I gave in.

I didn't consider how similar this is to the rape scenario presented earlier.

Classic example of how substances can alter one's decision-making processes. In your case, it was alcohol. Yet prescription drugs, street drugs or a cocktail combining any of the above, can easily lead to an impaired subject who makes what are destined to become regretful life decisions after being coerced into doing something they wouldn't have done otherwise.

However......I'm a firm believer in personal responsibility and accountability. YOU allowed yourself to be plied with alcohol. Thus YOU lowered your standards and made life decisions from an impaired state of mind. Things YOU admitted you wouldn't have done otherwise.....if .....you had been sober.

Yes, I've been there myself and subsequently made life decisions I regretted later. I learned my lesson. Luckily, without long lasting affects in the fallout.


This is why its not safe to play with others who are impaired, or while you-yourself are impaired. Too much shit can go off course, cues missed in the heat of the moment and consent doesn't carry the weight needed to be genuine and lasting when the light of day comes streaming through the window.

 

[Felonious1]

What if the word "abuse" were taken more seriously. In my version of utopian candy land it would be.

I don't think you can argue that this scenario isn't abuse - it's clear cut that it is. I think that the person it happened to gets to frame it for himself (always always always) but it's good to realize that it has different characteristics because of the assigned statuses of people involved. Put the setting into an institution with the woman in a power position over the man and it changes.

Why can't we save "rape" for violence/limitation of movement/clear cut physical inability to consent + penetration, and make abuse also, in theory anyway, unacceptable?

Seeing as rape is still more or less acceptable as I've defined it, this is all theory.

Many times, abuse and/or rape isn't identified for the moral or legal injustice that it truly is at its base-core reality of clinical definition. Much less framed, addressed, or overcome in a healthy way.

Many people have been raped, but don't recognize it as such.
Many people are rapist, yet the entitlement code they live by clouds reality.
Many people are in abusive relationships, yet can't recognize it as such.
Many people are abusive in one or more ways.

Yea......it's a fucked up world out there.

 

[stickygirl]

Why do you shut your brain down after these two statements already? Or are you really implying that those 97% (not 96.5?) are running around free because we don't take rape serious?

This is actually not bad, compared with other crimes.


Reasons why there are no more arrests:

a) There is no way to arrest someone if the offender is unknown. If there is no DNA or no DNA match and the rapist is not someone you know, who is there to arrest?

b) There is no reason to arrest if the offender is complying. If you know the rapist, police will usually interrogate the offender first and try to get his/her DNA without force. Once the DNA is secured, there is a fair chance that there is no remand. What for?

c) Even if there is an arrest warrant, the person still needs to be found. Check how many unserved warrants are there. This is sad. But this problem is true for all crimes, not just rape.

Out of 100 rapes 9 lead to prosecution. Out of 100 rapes 5 lead to a felony conviction.
Should we change the legal system that we sentence people although the jury is not convinced, just because the charge is 'rape'? Is this really desirable?

I'm not going to argue statistics but rape is a unique crime. I've been scratching my head trying to think of an equivalent crime without success - perhaps you can help?

Unlike any other type of crime, rape seldom has an independent witness and any amount of evidence can only prove there was sexual activity: it cannot prove it was consensual. A bar room brawl will have witnesses and the police are sure to ask 'Who started it?' An auto theft might be witnessed but they will either recognise the thief or try to make the ID from police records. Even a homicide relies on witnesses and forensics: it doesn't rely on the dead victim's lawyer having to prove the victim said 'Don't shoot me'.

You compared prosecution statistics to these sorts of crimes with rape, but the value of consent is irrelevant in them: an auto is stolen = crime; a person is murdered = crime. Rape =? Ah well, it's her word against his.

The problem with rape is that the victim has to prove there has been a crime. Then they have to prove they have never liked rough sex, because bruises mean nothing. She has to prove that by asking a guy in for coffee after dinner there was no assumption of sex to follow. All these to prove a crime even took place and this from a person who is still traumatised: that despite saying 'no' he somehow misunderstood 'no' - and she can't prove she said 'no'.

So I'm stuck here - I can't think of another crime that is similar, so comparing stats is meaningless.

The presumption of innocence is a given, but a defence lawyer's job is to cast doubt, to make the jury question the little evidence the victim can bring. She can't have an alibi because she was there. In our rape culture ( sorry if that's a trigger to you ) the case presented by the defence is that she was stupid to get drunk ( because rape culture tells us so ), she shouldn't have invited him in for coffee ( rape culture again ) in fact pretty much anything that led up to the attack is covered by this culture. All the victim has to offer is her word and what value do words have in a courtroom already suspicious?

I'm not talking about the random rape - that unknown assailant because you've checked the stats and you know how infrequent they are. Most rapes are committed by someone known.

You'll notice too that I'm not offering solutions but what doesn't help is the cultural acceptance, driven by well-meaning and concerned parents who say 'don't act that way or dress like that because...' We're all guilty of it because snap judgements are quick and convenient. It's only if we stand back, draw breath and then say "Actually, why the hell couldn't she dress like that - it wasn't her fault '

 

[BrightlyGo]

I'm not going to argue statistics but rape is a unique crime. I've been scratching my head trying to think of an equivalent crime without success - perhaps you can help?

Unlike any other type of crime, rape seldom has an independent witness and any amount of evidence can only prove there was sexual activity: it cannot prove it was consensual.

Nod. There's a crime teenagers love called 'conversion.' With respect to automobiles, it's called joy-riding - familiar to everyone, i should think. You get in a car, drive it around for a while, and leave it somewhere (possibly even where you picked it up), without the owner's permission. If you had permission, you'd just be borrowing the car, and no crime would be committed. It's a pretty minor crime, but it's another one that rests solely on the matter of consent.

 

[Primalex]

I'm not going to argue statistics but rape is a unique crime. I've been scratching my head trying to think of an equivalent crime without success - perhaps you can help?

There are some, certain types of fraud f.e.

You compared prosecution statistics to these sorts of crimes with rape, but the value of consent is irrelevant in them: an auto is stolen = crime; a person is murdered = crime. Rape =? Ah well, it's her word against his.

The problem with rape is that the victim has to prove there has been a crime. Then they have to prove they have never liked rough sex, because bruises mean nothing. She has to prove that by asking a guy in for coffee after dinner there was no assumption of sex to follow. All these to prove a crime even took place and this from a person who is still traumatised: that despite saying 'no' he somehow misunderstood 'no' - and she can't prove she said 'no'.

So I'm stuck here - I can't think of another crime that is similar, so comparing stats is meaningless.

The facts are correct, but I think your conclusion is wrong. You conclude that the comparison is meaningless. I conclude that when "simple" crimes like murder and burglary have less prosecutions than rape crimes, that they can't do such a bad job in prosecuting rape crimes, considering the difficult circumstances you have outlined.

The presumption of innocence is a given, but a defence lawyer's job is to cast doubt, to make the jury question the little evidence the victim can bring. She can't have an alibi because she was there. In our rape culture ( sorry if that's a trigger to you ) the case presented by the defence is that she was stupid to get drunk ( because rape culture tells us so ), she shouldn't have invited him in for coffee ( rape culture again ) in fact pretty much anything that led up to the attack is covered by this culture.

It's not a trigger, I just don't think it is right. I could argue that there is a domestic violence culture in BDSM, using the very same arguments and reasoning that exist that prove a rape culture.

Let's take Steubenville. That high school, football team, parents of the guys, girlfriends of the guys, the coaches etc. belittle what happened - this is not sufficient for me to see a rape culture. It's morale going totally wrong, much like a cop will not rat out another cop, even if that cop committed a crime against a citizen.

If YOU would belittle what happened, then we would have a rape culture.

All the victim has to offer is her word and what value do words have in a courtroom already suspicious?

You are right. But isn't this is due to the nature of the crime? Not because men try their best to devise a mischievous plan to make it most uncomfortable for a victim.

The reality is that the offender in a rape trial gets a unique plea bargain, up to minimum sentence, to save the victim from the court hearing. But the real problem is that the offender these days has nothing to lose anyway - he rather takes the higher sentence, because for him the chance to not get registered as sex offender and turned into a social outcast for the rest of his life is worth more than the guaranteed low sentence. Yes, that's the mind-blowing reality: The victim has to endure the court hearing, because sex offenders are absolutely not culturally accepted.

You'll notice too that I'm not offering solutions but what doesn't help is the cultural acceptance, driven by well-meaning and concerned parents who say 'don't act that way or dress like that because...' We're all guilty of it because snap judgements are quick and convenient.

Maybe we need to discuss what cultural acceptance means for us. Is murder culturally accepted in Detroit, with an all-time high of murders and when parents tell their kids to stay away from gangs and certain neighborhoods?

But maybe my view is too strict, I don't know. For me, cultural acceptance is when society says:"What did you expect, you are just a woman."