@mysteryman,
Hi mysteryman--I'm glad you did join in. I'll try to address the things you are claiming I've said--most of which I think are not accurate-- but it is difficult to do since you haven't indicated exactly what I said, by quoting me, or indicated the post in which I allegedly make the remarks.
Quote:You seem to be saying, and have posted some links that seem to agree, that any and all sex between two people can be considered rape, and we all know that isnt true.
I've
never said that all sex can be considered rape. The act of rape is specifically defined in the sexual assault laws of every state, and there is a federal definition as well. Rape is a criminal act, and as is the case with all criminal acts, it is defined in the criminal codes. I've never said otherwise.
I consider rape to be only the act that the laws define it to be.
"Rape" is only one type of sexual assault--because it's only one type of criminal sexual contact-- in that regard, rape is always a sexual assault, but not all sexual assaults are classified as rapes. Any type of sexual contact done without consent is legally considered a sexual assault. Canada no longer uses the term "rape" in its criminal code, and several U.S. states have also abandoned the term, and the acts previously defined as "rape" in those criminal codes, are now simply referred to as a specific type of sexual assault. This has allowed for better inclusion of male victims, since the traditional definition of rape only referred to penetration of a vagina by a penis, and did not include penetrative sexual contacts of other bodily openings (the mouth, the anus) either by genitalia or objects.
At the beginning of this thread, I felt the term "rape" should be retained in the laws, but, after giving the matter considerable thought, I no longer feel that way. It is an emotionally loaded word, with a great deal of historical baggage, that gives greater gravitas to certain acts committed by male perpetrators on female victims, downplaying similarly serious penetrative sexual assaults that can be done female/male, male/male, or female/female, so it no longer reflects the range of serious sexual assaults we now better acknowledge as being equivalent.
I also think the term "rape" is still too heavily associated with stranger rapes in the public mind, which leads to confusion because the majority of rapes which occur now are committed by someone known to the victim, and, despite the fact that these non-stranger rapes are also clear violations of sexual assault laws, and are legally defined as "rapes", there appears to be hesitancy, for many people, when it comes to applying the historical term "rape" to those criminal acts, and an unfortunate tendency to view non-stranger rapes as somehow less serious violations than those committed by a stranger, even though the laws regard them equally.
So, while I applaud the recent change in the federal definition of "rape", to better broaden its application to male victims, and to make it more inclusive of a variety of penetrative sexual assaults, I really think we should abandon the legal use of the term "rape" altogether, and simply use the more gender neutral "first degree sexual assault"--or something similar--in defining such acts. Just as the laws have changed in the past several decades, to better reflect changes in sexual mores and community attitudes, the terms we use to describe these criminal sexual acts should also change, for much the same reason.
What makes any type of sexual contact criminal is the fact it was done
without consent--and "consent", or the absence of it, is defined in the sexual assault laws of each state. And these contacts can range from touching, fondling, or kissing, to various types of bodily penetration. I don't define, or decide, what constitutes rape, state criminal law defines it. I merely support existing state laws pertaining to sexual assault.
Quote:You believe that any time someone is raped, it is never their fault, and that even someone that instigates the sex can later cry rape.
You have defended as a "victim", a woman that climbed into a guys bed while he was asleep, and she started the sex. You have said she was raped, when it was plainly obvious that she wasnt.
I don't believe that the criminal act of rape is ever the fault of the victim, because it is legally defined as only an act committed by one party against another, making only the perpetrator of that criminal act the responsible party.
Victims might make themselves vulnerable in one way or another, or they might be naturally or situationally vulnerable, but they are not responsible for the criminal acts of someone who choses to prey on them, by taking advantage of their vulnerability, in order to make sexual contacts without their consent, or when they lack the ability to resist, or when they are not considered legally competent to consent.
Someone might make themselves vulnerable to a burglary by leaving the windows to their home open, but that does not mean it is "their fault" if another person commits the criminal act of entering their home through one of those windows, and illegally takes their property. Similarly, a rape victim, who might be vulnerable, due to extreme intoxication, or advanced age, or developmental disabilities, etc. is not responsible for criminal acts of sexual assault committed against them, simply because they were in a vulnerable state. And the laws are designed to protect vulnerable individuals from sexual assaults, precisely because they could be more easily targeted for such crimes due to their vulnerability or diminished capacities.
Who instigated or initiated sexual contact has nothing to do with whether an act of intercourse is legally considered rape--it has to do with whether consent was present at the time the intercourse took place. One could initiate fondling or kissing, but then withdraw consent for any further acts. One could also agree to intercourse, but then withdraw consent because a condom wasn't being used, etc. Any act of intercourse done after, or while, a person is saying, "No" or "Stop", or trying to physically indicate resistance, would legally be considered rape--regardless of who initiated the sexual contact.
Quote:You seem to want to deny the FACT that men have been falsely accused, having their reputations destroyed. You seem to look at that as acceptable.
That's downright untrue, mysteryman. You've made this unjustified accusation before, and I've corrected you before, but I don't seem to be getting through to you.
I most definitely do not deny the fact that some men have had intentionally false allegations lodged against them. Nor do I deny that such deliberately malicious behavior, on the part of an accuser, can be extremely injurious to the reputation of anyone so accused. It is also damaging to the credibility of all the very real victims of rape who need to have their reports regarded seriously and investigated. And, in no way, do I feel that the lodging of deliberately false accusations is ever acceptable--not just in the case of sexual assaults, but in the case of any crimes.
However, in discussing the general issue of sexual assault/rape, I do think the issue of intentionally false allegations has to be kept in its proper perspective, both because it is a quite separate and different type of crime than sexual assault, and because it is often an issue raised by those who are intentionally trying to deny the prevalence of sexual assault, or distract attention from discussion of the very real crimes of sexual assault, or trying to impugn the credibility of any woman who alleges sexual assault, and it is often accompanied by exaggerated claims regarding prevalence of false allegations, and all of that has been the case in this thread.
The best, and most current research, done in several countries, which I have repeatedly posted in this thread, indicates the percentage of intentionally false allegations to be between 2%-8% of all rape reports--meaning that 92%--98% of rape complaints are not deemed to be deliberately false. So while the problem definitely exists--and it is a problem for law enforcement, as well as for the falsely accused, and for real rape victims as well, it is not an issue that should dominate a discussion of the actual crime of sexual assault, or one that should serve to discredit most reports of sexual assault. The crime of filing intentionally false allegations, and how that crime should be dealt with, really goes far afield from a discussion of the crime of rape--it is an entirely separate issue, that really should be dealt with in a separate thread.
In our justice system, deliberately false allegations that damage the character or reputation of another person are viewed as civil matters, and not criminal matters, and the appropriate place for adjudication of these offenses is in civil court. And anyone who feels they have been victimized, or damaged, by such intentionally false allegations, can bring a civil action against the party who made such allegations. This is true, not just in the case of deliberately false accusations made regarding sexual assaults, but in the case of deliberately false accusations of any crime, and whether these knowingly false allegations were made by an individual or by law enforcement. And a judgment in favor of the plaintiff, helps to restore the good name of those who were falsely accused, and the defendant in such an action is generally required to pay punitive monetary damage awards as additional compensation.
The misdemeanor crime of filing an intentionally false police report is regarded as a criminal act against law enforcement because it needlessly ties up police resources and time, and wastes taxpayer money. D.A.s file charges for filing false police reports when they feel it is in the public's interest to do so, since this is also a use of their resources and taxpayer's money. The penalties for filing intentionally false police reports most often include fines and community service, as well as mandated mental health treatment, but can also include jail time. Again, this is true, not just in the case of intentionally false reports of sexual assaults, but in the case of deliberately false reports of any crime. And, anyone who makes a deliberately false allegation under oath, has committed an act of perjury, something that is considered a far more serious crime, and one that carries a much harsher criminal penalty.
I have no problem with how our legal system, both criminal and civil, currently handles the issue of intentionally false allegations/police reports. Those who do have a problem with it, should start their own thread to address that issue because it is not related to the topic of this thread--it is an entirely separate issue from actual crimes of sexual assault, and it would, and should, include discussion of intentionally false reports of crimes other than those involving sexual assaults. What's rather curious, and somewhat suspect, is that no one in this thread, who is allegedly dissatisfied with the current penalties and remedies, for intentionally false allegations, seems willing to start that thread.
I've gone to great length to explain my thinking to you, and what my current positions are. If you still can't accurately comprehend my thinking, mysteryman, I give up. And, in the future, I would appreciate it if you directly quoted me, or linked to my actual posts, rather than just basing erroneous conclusions on what you think I said somewhere.