Why do so many women trivialize rape?

Post Reply New Topic

I work for a community drug and alcohol treatment center. The amount of people that I have worked with that have been the victim of sexual assaults, molestation and rape is unbelievably high, I would say 95%. These people belong to a massive cross section of society. As Lilya correctly stated many times rape victims are denied justice, persecuted or too afraid to relive the trauma of not only having to defend themselves to the face of their abuser and relive in detail the abuse that occurred but also risk not being believed.
People need to take this into consideration and respect the impact this has on peoples lives.

my jaw hit the floor when I saw one comment by a young woman thusly (not here though, some other place on the intarwebs):

"It's always the whales [fat women] with the rape whistles dangling from their necks"
(the comment alluding to the theory that fat women are "needlessly" worried about being raped, you know, the whole 'Geez who would rape you ? (if you're overweight)' thing)

It's often not paranoia, but rather past experience that makes said women fear rape; there's a statistical correlation between extreme overweight and child sexual abuse or rape. Some women subconsciously allow themselves to become obese as a self-defense mechanism.
http://www.syracuse.com/news/index.ssf/ ... besit.html
http://content.time.com/time/health/art ... 40,00.html
http://psychcentral.com/blog/archives/2 ... -as-armor/
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2941402/
http://acestoohigh.com/2012/05/23/toxic ... esity-too/
http://www.everydayhealth.com/weight/th ... -loss.aspx

Brandon banks is probably one in a million..

There is more then one confusing thing about what you (OP) are describing.

Did those girls actually accuse you of rape or following them in the cafeteria? What was the exact words they accused you with?

Unfortunately there is a small but seemingly growing minority of women who laugh at making false accusations of rape. It's terrifying how a woman can have sex willingly and consent, then decide she didn't want to and say rape, and you might be found not guilty, but not guilty and innocent are not the same thing. I think one day, with the way things are, sex is going to require a written contract with a witness.

As for the OP, there HAS to be more to this story than he's telling.

Does anyone here have any actual evidence that the number of false rape accusations are growing, or that women regularly have consensual sex and then change their minds and accuse the man of rape? Because the first is contradicted pretty solidly by the actual data on the subject (which shows that the rate of false rape accusations mirrors the false accusation rate for other crimes), and the latter is often an excuse used by men who rape intoxicated women (who are unable to consent).

What if they are both drunk? What about women not being able to kill rapists in self defense outside of their homes without being prosecuted for murder by the state? What about women not being allowed to carry weapons for self defense as easily as they should be able to? What about the women who go to jail after being raped by a celeb? What about all the other things?

If a man is drunk, and a woman is drunk, and they have sex, it is rape.
If a woman has sex with a drunk man it isn't rape, or the man raped her.
If a drunk woman, has sex with a man, it is rape.
See a problem with that? Probably not. Well there is.

If a drunk man can consent to sex, than so can a drunk woman.

I have never seen women trivialize rape. I find it ironic they would since they are more vulnerable to it. I have seen people compare things to rape. I have seen in statistics online that a woman rarely lies about being raped and a man is rarely falsely accused of rape. But sadly lot of rape cases goes unreported and very few of them get locked up for it and few others are facing charges.

Taking advantage of a drunk woman is legally rape. Taking advantage of a drunk man isn't.
It is the law that trivializes rape, not men or women in particular.

Men tend to have a difficult time functioning sexually when there's a great deal of alcohol in their systems.


I think that people in general can kill their assailants, regardless of where or why they're attacked (the exception being black or brown gang members), and have pretty good cases for self-defense. What they *can't* do, regardless of their gender, is (for example) pull a gun and shoot a guy for looking at them funny. Unless they're in Florida, and they're white and the other guy is black or brown. Then it's all ok.


?
I've never felt any barrier to going about as heavily armed as I care to be. I don't think that the rules are any different for women or men.

Examples?
I've never heard of a woman 'going to jail after being raped by a celebrity,' but I definitely agree that high-profile people can assume that they're going to get off scott-free if they rape someone, and that's BS.

You'll have to be more specific.

assuming that they're both equally incapacitated, and no force was involved, and they both thought that they were consenting at the time, then it's mutual rape, along the lines of two 14 year olds having sex.

That is not accurate.

If she is too sloshed to give aware consent, then yes: that is rape.

He can't.

Think about it this way: if a straight man is so drunk that he can't stand, speak coherently, or maintain consistent consciousness, and he agrees to go back to a gay man's room with him to 'view some Star Trek paraphernalia,' or some other thing that he's interested in and not sober enough to see as a come-on, and the gay man proceeds to anally penetrate the straight guy, which he knows that the straight guy wouldn't consent to if he was capable of articulating a 'no,' has the straight guy been raped? I think that he has been. If the drunk guy were gay, he would still have been raped. If the drunk guy were in fact a woman and not a guy, then likewise she would have been raped.

Let me make it simple: If you deliberately take advantage of a person who is too drunk to fully understand what is going on, or too drunk to say, 'No,' then you are a rapist, regardless of your gender or theirs.

What a double standard.

Apple, dude, do you do this to deliberately make it difficult to fisk your arguments?

No, it's saying that drunk men can't get it up.

evidence, please?

Gang members don't stop being people when they join a gang, and during gang warfare the main combatants will go for anyone associated with the other side regardless of their innocence or lack thereof; should an innocent not have the right to self-defense just because some of his friends happen to be gang members? Should a non-combatant gang member not have a right to defend himself if someone is pointing a gun at him?
Fwiw, the legal system acts like you seem to want it to: alleged gang members are basically treated as terrorists, with no rights of citizenship whatsoever.

You know what's easier than charging someone with manslaughter? Not charging someone at all. Zimmerman, for example, was going to be let off without a trial until the public outcry.

You clearly haven't been following the news. There's Zimmerman; there's the guy who shot the teen in the car for loud music (apparently the teen was 'scary,' though, so he's claiming 'stand your ground.') There's also the white guy who shot a black woman in the face when she knocked on his door after being in a car crash, with her phone distorted in the wreck. Those are just the ones that actually did go to trial; the ones where the shooter is let off without being charged never make it outside the local news, if they even make it there.
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline ... ound-laws/

...{snip un-countered arguments}...


You seem to completely miss the point that rape is sex without consent.If they're both too drunk to consent, then they are both raped.


Very few times, I'd imagine, if any at all, except when the man was violent or used force. If she has hand-shaped bruises all over, she has a pretty good case even if he was drunk.

Your underlining implying that you think a woman who can't even speak or walk, much less say no, should be able to legally be found to have consented because she didn't struggle or say no?


I agree that it is a double-standard in our culture, here, but as with the definition of rape, feminists are helping to redefine this and the culture is slowly changing. So it's not "no" jury, just one full of old people who still subscribe to patriarchal notions of male sexuality.

I was assuming that you'd be a homophobe and thus squicked out enough to get the point, based on the tack of your arguments; my apologies.


because, as mentioned above, it's unlikely that 1)the drunk guy is able to maintain an erection or 2) that a woman is going to anally rape a guy with some sort of object. If he can, and if she did, then yes: that would also be rape.
[/quote]
Then we should be grateful that men are 1/8 or less of actual rape victims, neh? Because rape is horrible, regardless of whom it happens to.

It usually takes quite a hell of a lot of alcohol though, for there to be so much in his system that he can't get an erection. So, even taking that into account, it's still possible for him to be not so drunk that he can't get an erection but still too drunk to be able to give consent.

Why do so many women get raped?
Why are these men not getting prosecuted?

17.7 million rapes of women, and we are not putting those people in prison?
I don't mean to sound sexist if I have. I just am amazed and appalled this is
even happening. We do have DNA testing now.