Jophiel wrote:
No, someone named John Doe presented me with a site of someone talking about the Koss study. Which, as I said at the time, included this surely damning bit:
For current purposes, the term acquaintance rape will be defined as being subjected to unwanted sexual intercourse, oral sex, **** sex, or other sexual contact through the use of force or threat of force. Unsuccessful attempts are also subsumed within the term "rape." Sexual coercion is defined as unwanted sexual intercourse, or any other sexual contact subsequent to the use of menacing verbal pressure or misuse of authority (Koss, 1988).
And yet, in her study, she labeled any situation in which alchohol was consumed prior to sex as rape.
You're pointing to what people write down. I'm pointing to how people actually use the term. More importantly, what is *different* between date rape and rape.
Quote:
If I invite a girl to my apartment to watch a movie, slip something in her drink and molest her unconscious body, it's considered to be date rape. Even if a toxology report shows obvious traces of the drug, it's still called date rape. If she comes over and I beat the hell out of her and rape her, it's still date rape. If we go to a bar and I accost her at Makeout Point, it's date rape.
That's
rape. This is part of the point I was trying to get across in the original thread. That by creating a subset of rape called date rape, we end up adding additional scenarios that *don't* match what most people would call rape.
My whole point is that IMO, the labels themselves are wrong. Counterarguing that position by listing off what the labels mean isn't exaclty constructive. I argued this point for several pages that last time and apparently you *still* don't get it. You can show me a thousand definitions of date rape, but that will not change my assertion that the mere existance of the term causes scenarios that are most definately not "rape" of any sort to be lumped legally into a sexual charge (which may or may not be called rape depending on where you are at).
Go read the freaking story that started that original thread Joph. Was that a woman who was drugged and molested while uncouncious? Was that a woman who was forced to have sex with someone via threat of violence? No? It was a woman who gave a guy head, then felt bad about it, didn't want her boyfriend to know she'd cheated on him, so she charged the kid with rape.
Does that match your definitions? No? Then why did this guy get charged with a crime? Why did he get investigated? Why was his reputation ruined? Because a woman had sexual relations with him and then later decided she didn't want to. There was no evidence, situationally or physically that any sort of rape had occured.
Which is *exactly* the case I'm talking about. To argue that this does not end up affecting legal charges of rape is absurd since the whole issue we were discussing revolved around exactly such an occurance. Contriving situations where someone was blatantly raped while on a date doesn't change the fact that since the common use of the
label "date rape" the rate of false accusations has skyrocketed. My entire point was that the label, and its resulting definitions ends up creating an impossible to prove condition. One in which there's no physical evidence of rape, no forensic evidence of rape, no situational evidence of rape (she knew him and was with him willingly), but a woman says "after the fact" that she was raped.
The only thing a third party has to go on is the woman's claim, made after she's engaged in non-violent sexual activity, that she didn't want to have sex.
And yes. I'm aware that some of the definitions of date rape do include violence. Those aren't the cases I'm talking about here. "Date rape" in this context is not just "being raped while on a date". It's specific to rape in which there is only a claim of coersion after the fact.
Look. Many years ago, I worked at a convenience store. One night, one of the locals came by. Kind of a tough guy. He claimed that he knew the boss and that it was ok to give him "credit" for some stuff. He very noticably revealed a large knife on his belt (but did not draw it or directly threaten me with it). Thinking that it was better to just avoid the confrontation, I played along with the credit deal, figuring I'd check it out with the boss later. Surprise, turns out the guy was lying. Aditional surprise, when I tried to report it as a robbery, the cops basically said that since he didn't actually threaten me as a consequence of not complying, it wasn't robbery. I reacted to an implied threat, but not an overt one, so there was no way they could proceed. In other words, it was my choice to give him some stuff from the store, so there was no crime commited. I ended up having to pay back the store for the lost goods as well.
What relevance does this have? Simple. In every other type of crime, you can't claim someone's commited a crime against you because you *think* they might commit that crime if you don't go along with them. You have to actually refuse and force them to choose to commit the crime. This is one of my biggest problems with the whole date rape thing. It's a case where women can charge someone with a crime because the feared that if they didn't go along, they *might* be raped. Again. In every other crime, the person has to actually commit the crime. IMO, that's the dividing line. If he drugs the girl, it's rape. If he threatens her, it's rape. If he beats her and forces himself on her, it's rape. If he just keep pushing her about it, and she gives in fearing that he might do something violent if she doesn't, that's *not* rape. Get it?
My whole assertation is that the very label of "date rape" is prone to being misused. Sure. It's often applied to a rape that occurs on a date. But that's not all it's used for, and doesn't really change much (since a rape is a rape regardless of where it happens). It's the other cases that I'm talking about. The ones where there is no force or threat of violence. The ones where there is no evidence of non-consentuality. You know. Like the specific case in the thread where I made those comments that everyone seems to love to take out of context.
Sheesh.
