[blackshoe]

helene_t, on 2014-September-30, 02:33, said:

No doubt there are double standards but even with a totally unbiased legal system I think cases of women raping men would still be rare. Obviously stuff like coercing and sexual harrasment could easily occur both ways, but outright rape less so. There was a case from Russia a few years ago where a guy tried to rop a hairdresser saloon. One of the (female) staff managed to knock him down, tie him to a radiator, feed him with viagra and rape him. Now I don't know if the story is true since the source was just the woman bragging about it on social media, but in any case you can imagine such cases to be rare.

I'm sure they're rare. I don't think the possibility should be dismissed out of hand, that's all.

[blackshoe]

I'm coming to a sense that the rule is, or apparently should be "don't have sex, period, unless you are absolutely certain your partner will not later claim he or she was coerced or incapacitated."

That ought to be acceptable to the "let's get rid of humans" crowd, anyway.

[mike777]

blackshoe, on 2014-September-30, 21:53, said:

I'm coming to a sense that the rule is, or apparently should be "don't have sex, period, unless you are absolutely certain your partner will not later claim he or she was coerced or incapacitated."

That ought to be acceptable to the "let's get rid of humans" crowd, anyway.

We long ago found ways to reproduce without the sex act. We have surrogates to carry the child. We now only need to invent the womb to liberate women.

---

Clearly the law is gender neutral but there can be women sexually abusing women as well as men abusing men. Clearly women can and do rape and sexually assault male children.

With all of that said perhaps the main goal is more to deter rather than throw a million men into the justice system. That when you are with a woman and she takes some form of intoxicant that is in current favor that renders her unable to consent.

The goal being to protect women but I worry that the law may in fact do the opposite and project women as being unable to consent as an adult. When I read the law as a layman what I see is the need to protect women when they go on a date with a man and imbue the latest form of intoxicant they become unable to give consent.

OTOH it sounds rape and sexual assault of women has reached epidemic numbers. I mean if 20% of women in college came down with Ebola????????

[Vampyr]

kenberg, on 2014-September-30, 15:51, said:

I agree with this.

As a male, I want to add on a bit though. The consequences for the man can be substantial. If there is a pregnanacy the woman has by far the most to deal with, financially and psychologically. It is life changing, no doubt about that. . But both legally and emotionally the male is not apt to be home free. . Fully embracing this fact should have a salutary effect on males, at least on those who think about their future. It would be a very good idea for young men to be made fully aware of how this could change their lives, even if no rape charges are filed. Paternity responsibilities should be adequate reason for at least some thought on their part.

Paternity obligations are far less inevitable than a birth or need for an abortion when a eg nancy occurs.

[kenberg]

Vampyr, on 2014-September-30, 22:57, said:

Paternity obligations are far less inevitable than a birth or need for an abortion when a eg nancy occurs.

Certainly.
I have an adolescent grandson. He is still in early adolescence but I understand there have already been some family discussions about responsibility. I don't at all contest that it is the woman that raises the child, or has the abortion, or gives up the child for adoption, any of which are of a whole different order of magnitude from the consequences for the guy. It would be desirable to encourage young men to use some judgment, and pointing out to them that while it is true that the major burden almost always falls on the woman, this does not mean that they are free of consequences. People often listen up a bit better when the talk turns to how it will affect them. No doubt young men should consider the possible consequences for the woman, certainly they should, but as a practical matter it might be more effective to speak to them of the consequences for them.

Here is another way of looking at it. At least when I was young, oh so long ago, the cultural idea was strong that if a man is presented with the opportunity to bed an attractive woman then there is something seriously wrong with him if he declines. This can get him into a lot of trouble, and I would like to see that awareness be a fully developed caution for him.

[billw55]

kenberg, on 2014-September-30, 16:34, said:

I would hope they can so agree. Actually, it seems most couples have an agreement, although probably never explicitly spoken, something like "I'll let you know if you are over the line, until you hear that, relax and enjoy it"

I guess we would call that a "concealed partnership understanding"?

[barmar]

mike777, on 2014-September-30, 17:31, said:

Yes, I am old enough that when one heard of rape or sexual assault one thought it was done by a stranger on the street or by a stranger as part of war.

There was a time when the phrase "marital rape" was considered an oxymoron, and "date rape" wasn't a thing. We're (mostly) more enlightened now.

[kenberg]

In the 1950s, date rape was not a phrase but I certainly think it would be punished. But yes, of course, things were different. I recall a newspaper story where a man was charged with raping a woman that had gone back to his hotel room with him. The judge let him off, saying that going her choosing freely to go to his hotel room constituted consent. Even back then, there was protest over this.

There has always been difficulties with the concept of consent. This is one reason I really like "No means No". Clarity is useful. The judge back then basically claimed that any adult woman (she was) understands that an invitation to come back to a hotel room is a proposition to have sex. As a factual matter, with the code words of the era, this much was probably correct, at least sort of. But definitely there were other circumstances where such an understanding would not be presumed. A picnic for two in the park, for example. If I took a girl canoeing on the St. Croix, which I did on occasion, neither she nor I would regard her coming with me as consent and I would surely be prosecuted if I treated it as consent. So I think date rape was prosecuted, although not under that name.

It's true that there were some very weird things. When I was in college a guy lived in an apartment across the street from me. He was in school, a vet, and in his 20s. He and his girlfriend were going out for a day in the park and the two of them stopped off and went into his place to pick up some supplies. Someone reported this immoral activity and they were both kicked out of school.

Yep, it was crazy. But I am pretty sure date rape would be prosecuted. Marital rape I am not so sure about. In extreme cases, I think that it would be. Don't pin me down with what "extreme" means.

[akwoo]

Juries are likely to object when the law is applied in an unreasonable manner, even if the application is in accordance with the literal meaning of the law.

This is one of the reasons for trial by jury.

[mycroft]

This is one of the reasons for "Yes means yes", frankly.

I know, I'm weird, but over and above all the legal issues and the moral ones, it's just more *fun* with an enthusiastic, wanting (rather than willing, or allowing) partner. Even if you're doing things that look like dominance games.

But I know that I'm weird; I also know there are those that don't care as long as they get what they want, and those who get off on power, and it's the fact that they have the power to get someone else to do something that is thrilling, not (at least primarily) what they got them to do. I have words for those people; and while I won't use them here, the fact that the law is starting to say "this is not something you get to play power games with" is, to my mind, a good thing.

I also think that those who think date rape would be prosecuted, look at all the stories from this year alone at Universities where date rape (and passed-out-drunk rape, and I'm an athlete rape) is being actively not prosecuted *now*. I can't imagine it was better *then*, when the Ugly Republican comments about skirts and aspirins were standard, not ugly...

[blackshoe]

mycroft, on 2014-October-02, 11:03, said:

I also think that those who think date rape would be prosecuted, look at all the stories from this year alone at Universities where date rape (and passed-out-drunk rape, and I'm an athlete rape) is being actively not prosecuted *now*. I can't imagine it was better *then*, when the Ugly Republican comments about skirts and aspirins were standard, not ugly...

Democrats don't (never did) make such comments?

Riiiight.

[kenberg]

blackshoe, on 2014-October-02, 12:52, said:

Democrats don't (never did) make such comments?

Riiiight.

We are definitely too high minded. Not counting "The bitch set me up". Also I don't know any ugly comments about aspirin. Once again I am out of touch.

[Trinidad]

And Yeeeessss, ladies and gentlemen, we did find a way to turn "He did, she did" into "the Republicans did, the Democrats did"...

Rik

[mycroft]

blackshoe, on 2014-October-02, 12:52, said:

Democrats don't (never did) make such comments?

Don't? Well, not that I saw the last round of this. And certainly not in public, intending to make political points thereon. Never did? Well, given my argument was based on the fact that *now*, we think this is insensitive and misguided, but back "in the day" Ken was taking about, it was a standard reaction, I think you know my answer to that - and I don't think it helps any argument. Plus, if they did/do, it just adds to my argument?

Having said that, you do realize that those crazy Right-wing Democrats are way too conservative for reasonable persons Canadians me, right?

[Edit to add: you do realize it's a massive derail from my point that 'the good old days, where I'm sure this was prosecuted all the time' were the same good old days where this kind of victim-blaming was de rigeur, and so was the hiding of it all, and the sequestering of 'fallen women' in special schools, and...therefore in fact, it probably wasn't? And, what's worse, I followed the derail?]

[blackshoe]

So did I (follow the derail).

The "good old days" had their pluses and minuses. On this subject, mostly minuses. Blaming one or another political ideology for that is a waste of breath. At least that's the point I was trying to make.

The culture has changed. Human nature hasn't.