SexKitten Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 Originally posted by BrotherAaron Erections are involuntary. A guy "loses" an erection, he doesn't "put it away". It comes and go as it pleases. Men can be raped. It's less common (not counting prison rape ) but it's not impossible, and the law does give equal consideration. But, if you think that rape is underreported by women due to fear/shame/embarrassment, that must be double true amongst men. yeah, but who knows if any of those men are even telling the truth.
Author BrotherAaron Posted June 6, 2005 Author Posted June 6, 2005 While the ones who actually got raped are keeping their mouths shut, some attention seeking man-whore is out there accusing people he wishes would have.
Author BrotherAaron Posted June 6, 2005 Author Posted June 6, 2005 It was a joke... that the only people pressing charges for rape and one's who didn't commit it, in response to Sex Kitten's comment Yeah, but who knows if any of those men are even telling the truth. The point is - not everybody who gets raped reports it, and not everybody who reports rape is telling the truth. The system has to somehow differentiate between the two.
shamen Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 It (the system) does the best it can... like I've said before, there is a burden of proof, guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. Is it failsafe? Absolutely not. I don't know what the answer is. Hell, if I did, I'd be famous and a prosecutor or something. I wish, god do I wish, that I would have reported my date rape. Ah well, can't turn back time. It seems to me that the laws have changed to make it easier for a real date rapist to get convicted too. So, even though sometimes good people get caught in the net, more bad ones are as well. And that is a GOOD thing (more bad ones getting caught in the net).
noname Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 Originally posted by BrotherAaron Erections are involuntary. A guy "loses" an erection, he doesn't "put it away". It comes and go as it pleases. The penis responds to touch, and in many men that would cause an erection even if they were not enjoying it. Men can be raped. It's less common (not counting prison rape ) but it's not impossible, and the law does give equal consideration. But, if you think that rape is underreported by women due to fear/shame/embarrassment, that must be double true amongst men. that is exactly why i asked for more men to speak. you must be very different from me. yeah they are involuntary to a degree. mine pops up by itself all the time. but if a man is being violated i cannot see why it would not go away by itself. when i am disgusted or if i felt fear or was being assaulted, i can almost guarantee i'm going six thirty. i don't have to put it away, it's putting itself away. i am perfectly healthy otherwise but if i had a gun to my head or i was tied against my will, my monkey will go back in the cage. touch alone can't do anything about it. just ask people in the porn industry how hard it is to be a male star. fear of being on camera alone could make someone not be able to work it out with pamela anderson. that is why there are so few. i know that men can be raped and it is underreported (said so in my other posts), i just thought it would be more along the lines of sodomy or touch. and i doubt that when a male is touched during prison rape, that he gets an involuntary erection merely from touch. but i really wouldn't know and hope i never have to find out. you know what i mean? anyway, my question was not to disagree with anyone. it was more along the lines to find out what people think. thanks
shamen Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 Originally posted by SexKitten actually...it is so that a husband can rape his wife. There is such a thing as spousal rape... (and again, it's not always just the husband's). See the attached link... http://www.ncvc.org/ncvc/main.aspx?dbName=DocumentViewer&DocumentID=32701
scratch Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 Originally posted by Craig What do you mean by this? Are you saying that a woman can not force a man (with violence or otherwise) to have an erection and then have sexual intercourse with him against his will? Again, in every jurisdiction, pentration with a sex organ is an element of the crime of rape. I am saying that a woman cannot penetrate a man with a sex organ. Shamen, I think this board shut down the PM system. Try to PM me, see what happens. But, if everybody wanted to discuss this, it worked out fine.
shamen Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 Originally posted by scratch Again, in every jurisdiction, pentration with a sex organ is an element of the crime of rape. I am saying that a woman cannot penetrate a man with a sex organ. No, penetration with a sex organ is NOT necessarily an element of the crime of rape. It can be an object too. Go back and look at the laws on the last page...
Craig Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 Originally posted by scratch Again, in every jurisdiction, pentration with a sex organ is an element of the crime of rape. I am saying that a woman cannot penetrate a man with a sex organ. Penetration is not required. Period. Regarding your last sentence in the above quote, are you saying that if a woman threatens a man with a gun, ties him up, forces him to have an erection and then mounts him that it isn't rape of the man by the woman? Do you think the rape laws I quoted above use the word "person" instead of "man" when referencing the perpetrator for a reason?
Craig Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 Originally posted by SexKitten actually...it is so that a husband can rape his wife. Yes, you are right SexKitten. I didn't want to quote all the rape laws but make a point that the rape laws do not refer to the perpetrator as a "man" but use the word "person" because both men (mostly) and women (less so) can and do commit rape.
crazy_grl Posted June 6, 2005 Posted June 6, 2005 I was going to stay away from this discussion... Originally posted by scratch Again, in every jurisdiction, pentration with a sex organ is an element of the crime of rape. I am saying that a woman cannot penetrate a man with a sex organ. That's not true. The example that Craig first gave you does not even support this statement as you may think it does. You say that every jurisdiction is this way. Yet you've been provided with examples that prove it's not the case. Originally posted by Craig (h) "Sexual battery" means oral, anal, or vaginal penetration by, or union with, the sexual organ of another or the anal or vaginal penetration of another by any other object; however, sexual battery does not include an act done for a bona fide medical purpose. This law mentions penetration, but it doesn't state that the violator has to be the one penetrating the victim. Based on the wording, the violator could be a woman forcing the man to cause penetration. That law also says "or union with". No penetration is required. That is also just one of the definitions that that particular jurisdiction uses (hence the 'h' at the beginning) for rape. There are obviously more classifications that could also include women as the violators.
scratch Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 Originally posted by crazy_grl This law mentions penetration, but it doesn't state that the violator has to be the one penetrating the victim. Based on the wording, the violator could be a woman forcing the man to cause penetration. That law also says "or union with". No penetration is required. That is also just one of the definitions that that particular jurisdiction uses (hence the 'h' at the beginning) for rape. There are obviously more classifications that could also include women as the violators. You quoted a battery law. That is sexual assault or sexual battery, depending on the jurisdiction. This is just a black letter rule, as I said to him at first, but is a rule nontheless. I'm not sure why you guys want to argue about such an arcane and technical point, but am happy to correct you. If any other lawyers on this board want to sound off, great. The rest of you, hush.
Craig Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 Originally posted by scratch You quoted a battery law. That is sexual assault or sexual battery, depending on the jurisdiction. This is just a black letter rule, as I said to him at first, but is a rule nontheless. I'm not sure why you guys want to argue about such an arcane and technical point, but am happy to correct you. If any other lawyers on this board want to sound off, great. The rest of you, hush. The law quoted is from Florida. Rape in Florida is called "sexual battery." Scratch what is a "black letter" rule? The last I heard this is a free discussion board located in a free country and everyone's contribution to the discussion is welcome. Why won't you answer my questions?
scratch Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 Originally posted by Craig The law quoted is from Florida. Rape in Florida is called "sexual battery." Scratch what is a "black letter" rule? The last I heard this is a free discussion board located in a free country and everyone's contribution to the discussion is welcome. Why won't you answer my questions? Okay, you actually nailed the technical difference. Florida doesn't prosecute rape, per se. There is no crime of "rape" in that state. Let me reiterate: a woman can commit a sexual battery against a man, but cannot rape him. A black letter rule is a little hard to explain. It's when someone just states the rule of law and says "this is what it is." The opposite is a discussion about what a law should be. Since all we're doing here is arguing legal sematics, it's a matter of black letter law. Of course it's a free country. Doesn't mean you should tell people the sky is purple when people who have looked at it more carefully say it's blue. To your earlier questions: 1. In your fact pattern below, the woman did not rape the man. She committed a crime of another name. 2. Rape laws are facially gender neutral to pass constitutional muster, not to foster actual prosecution of women. Women are prosecuted under assault or battery laws, even in cases of statutory (age-driven) sexual conduct.
Craig Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 Originally posted by scratch Okay, you actually nailed the technical difference. Florida doesn't prosecute rape, per se. There is no crime of "rape" in that state. Let me reiterate: a woman can commit a sexual battery against a man, but cannot rape him. That is in Florida but in other states she would be charged with rape. In fact women are charged and prosecuted for rape of men (not statutory rape) every year. Relatively few women are charged with rape compared to the number of men charged with rape but it does happen. A black letter rule is a little hard to explain. It's when someone just states the rule of law and says "this is what it is." The opposite is a discussion about what a law should be. Since all we're doing here is arguing legal sematics, it's a matter of black letter law. I have been stating what is, not what should be. Of course it's a free country. Doesn't mean you should tell people the sky is purple when people who have looked at it more carefully say it's blue. And your point is what? My point is that this is a free discussion and you have no right to demand that only lawyers respond and all others "hush." To your earlier questions: 1. In your fact pattern below, the woman did not rape the man. She committed a crime of another name. In a state other than Florida she would have been charged with the crime named "rape." 2. Rape laws are facially gender neutral to pass constitutional muster, not to foster actual prosecution of women. Women are prosecuted under assault or battery laws, even in cases of statutory (age-driven) sexual conduct. Wrong if the state has laws that name the crime as rape, it applies to men or women as perpetrators. Women are charged with with the crime named "rape" (not statutory rape) under the rape laws every year. According to U.S. Department of Justice statistics from 1997, an estimated 9 percent of rape survivors are male. Most of their attackers are male but some are female. "Men get raped by other men and even women" Rape Crisis Center of Catawaba County, Hickory, NC http://www.rapecrisiscenter.com/Mal...fo%20Sheet.html Can a big man be raped by a woman? Although the incidence of women raping men is low, it can happen. A big man could be raped by a woman. She could use a weapon to intimidate him, and a man can get an erection out of fear. City College of San Francisco, Womens Studies Dept. http://www.ccsf.edu/Departments/Wom...RVIVE/4_01.html You accused me of being gender biased and I was giving examples that the laws are not gender biased. Just because I criticize the way a predominantly male perpetrated crime is handled by the state does not mean that I am biased against women. From my experience and research there is massive ignorance regarding what goes on in the criminal & civil justice system in this country and many other western countries. I'd guess that 99% of the system (excluding people) is a really great system but it's that 1% of the system that allows people to misuse and abuse it for their own personal, selfish and yes evil gain. Right now, today there are thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of cases under review because of police and/or prosecutorial misconduct. Thousands of innocent people are rotting in prisons that should not be there and why? Because the police and/or prosecutor did not do their jobs the way that they are supposed to do them according to the system. The misconduct of one single forensics person required a review of thousands of cases and in some instances innocent people were set free from death row because a re-examination of the existing evidence showed that there was no way they could have committed the crime. In the case of date rape where both people are equally believable there are investigative tools available to aid the D.A. in deciding whether to proceed with a trial. One of these tools is the polygraph. Polygraphs are not admissible in court but in the case of a date rape where there is no evidence other than two equally believable peoples statements it can help the D.A. decide to go to trial or not. The polygraph isn't used all the time in these cases because of budget restrictions and so what happens is the D.A. (hoping to save money and time) offers a reduced charge to the accused, who being ignorant of the consequences, afraid and lacking sufficient funds to hire a good lawyer decides to take the plea bargain--even though he is innocent. The consequence is a lifetime of being labeled a sex offender and all the bad stuff that goes along with it.
scratch Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 I don't think you're going to find a prosecution or conviction by a woman for a crime so titled "rape." I've never seen nor heard of one. Most references to a female rapist are colloquial references to a woman who committed another sexual crime. Yes, I understand that some government officals are filthy criminals, as are rapists and people who lodge false rape complaints. But it's unrealistic to hold them to a higher standard than other people. Asking all government officials to not commit misconduct is like asking all people to not rape or lie about being raped. It would be great if all people would comply with that, but they won't, so we have laws and penalties for those who transgress the laws. So it has always been, so will it always be.
Craig Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 Originally posted by scratch I don't think you're going to find a prosecution or conviction by a woman for a crime so titled "rape." I've never seen nor heard of one. Most references to a female rapist are colloquial references to a woman who committed another sexual crime. A 36 year old woman was charged, stood trial and found guilty of first degree rape by a 7 woman, 5 man Superior Court jury in Spokane, WA. The 42 year old male victim was punched, chained, burned, raped and threatened with a knife until he escaped and called police. A 44 year old woman charged with first degree rape (not statutory rape) of a 17 year old. http://www.dhonline.com/articles/2004/07/26/news/local/news03.txt Yes, I understand that some government officals are filthy criminals, as are rapists and people who lodge false rape complaints. But it's unrealistic to hold them to a higher standard than other people. Not only must they be held to a higher standard they agree to be held to a higher standard by amongst other things swearing that they will perform their duties to the highest standard. Asking all government officials to not commit misconduct is like asking all people to not rape or lie about being raped. It would be great if all people would comply with that, but they won't, so we have laws and penalties for those who transgress the laws. So it has always been, so will it always be. We already do ask and even demand that government officials not to engage in misconduct as part of their job description. These government officials are placed into positions of immense trust and power over the rights and freedoms of their fellow citizens and must be held to a higher standard.
scratch Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 Originally posted by Craig A 36 year old woman was charged, stood trial and found guilty of first degree rape by a 7 woman, 5 man Superior Court jury in Spokane, WA. The 42 year old male victim was punched, chained, burned, raped and threatened with a knife until he escaped and called police. A 44 year old woman charged with first degree rape (not statutory rape) of a 17 year old. http://www.dhonline.com/articles/2004/07/26/news/local/news03.txt Not only must they be held to a higher standard they agree to be held to a higher standard by amongst other things swearing that they will perform their duties to the highest standard. We already do ask and even demand that government officials not to engage in misconduct as part of their job description. These government officials are placed into positions of immense trust and power over the rights and freedoms of their fellow citizens and must be held to a higher standard. I applaud your diligence. In fact, it encouraged me to go back and do some research of my own. Having said that, I spent about an hour for a westlaw or lexis reference for an actual case opinion, and came up empty. Thus, I maintain that the news articles are using the term rape colloquially. What can we do to ensure better monitoring of state officials? Improve the selection process? The supervision process? Increase their penalites for professional misconduct? What is your plan? Thus far, you've only noted that they don't, by and large, adhere to the standards you wish they would - what's the plan to improve that adherence?
SexKitten Posted June 7, 2005 Posted June 7, 2005 Originally posted by BrotherAaron While the ones who actually got raped are keeping their mouths shut, some attention seeking man-whore is out there accusing people he wishes would have.
Craig Posted June 8, 2005 Posted June 8, 2005 Originally posted by scratch I applaud your diligence. In fact, it encouraged me to go back and do some research of my own. Having said that, I spent about an hour for a westlaw or lexis reference for an actual case opinion, and came up empty. Thus, I maintain that the news articles are using the term rape colloquially. I don't have access to all case histories on westlaw or lexis reference but can provide the following references from other legitimate sources: 1. Female Sex Offenders in Washinton State by Lin Song, Roxanne Lieb and Sheila Donnelly, October 1993. Found at the Washinton State Institute for Public Policy http://www.wsipp.wa.gov/rptfiles/femsoff.pdf Page 6 - 3 instances of 1st and 2nd degree rape of an adult by a female. 2. Brown, M. E., Hull, L. A., & Panesis, L., K. (1984). Women who rape. Boston, MA: Massachusetts Trial Court. Report thirteen cases of females arrested for the rape of both female and male victims in Massachusetts between the years 1974 and 1978 as well as an additional seven cases from 1980 to 1981. 3. Sarrel, P. M. & Masters, W.H. (1982). Sexual molestation of men by women. Archives of sexual behaviour 11(2), 117-131. Provide evidence contradicting the belief that it is impossible for men to respond sexually when subjected to sexual molestation by females. They present eleven cases of male molestation by females, indicating that the male sex response can occur in a variety of emotional states including anger and terror. 4. Elliot, D. & Briere, J. (1994). Forensic sexual abuse evaluations of older children - Disclosures and symptomology. Behavioural Sciences and the Law, 12(3), 261-277. Suggest that another reason why female sexual assaults of men may be neglected is that males, in general, are reluctant to report sexual abuse. 5. Williams, S. (1995). Female sex offenders. Addendum to Risk Assessment Training Manual. (pp.38-46). Correctional Service Canada. The sexual assault of a man by a woman is likely to be unreported because of actual or perceived social consequences. What can we do to ensure better monitoring of state officials? Improve the selection process? The supervision process? Increase their penalites for professional misconduct? What is your plan? Thus far, you've only noted that they don't, by and large, adhere to the standards you wish they would - what's the plan to improve that adherence? A good start would be for all individuals involved in the criminal justice system to be held to the same standards of accountability that a private citizen is in doing their job. For example, if a doctor performs knee replacement surgery on a patient but replaces the wrong knee we all expect the doctor to be held accountable for his/her negligence. Or if a customer buys a used car that had factory installed air bags and the car is represented as having air bags by the salesperson who knows that the car has no working air bags because they were removed and sold then that customer has clear criminal and civil recourse against that salesperson and that salesperson's employer (actual fraud or fraudulent misrepresentation comes to mind.) On the other hand if a police officer receives a call that a woman has been date raped, takes a report and then without further investigation arrests the alleged perpetrator there is no recourse available for the falsely accused against the police officer personally. The police officer owes a duty of care to the public to investigate fully any and all actionable accusations. An investigation would at the very least consist of taking a report from the accuser and then going to the accused and getting the accused story or explanation. It may very well be that the accused has a strong and credible alibi OR in the case where the accused and accuser are equally believable and there is no physical evidence to support either persons story other tools such as the history of each person and a polygraph examination of each will help a D.A. decide whether or not to proceed to trial or even charges. Make em pay for negligence, fraud and misrepresentation is part of my theory.
Recommended Posts