Aripyanfar wrote:
WHat you are entirely missing out here in all these situations is the many many situations where a woman knows a man, is friendly with that man, but definitely doesn't want to have sex with him. However he takes the history of their relationship as an excuse to forcibly have sex with her, relying on the fact that their previous history of mutual trust together, whether long or short, means she is a vulnerable victim to forced sex, and will have a harder time proving rape, as he wasn't a stranger. THIS is date rape.
Sure. And do you see how this is not in anyway something I'm arguing isn't rape? And, just to be topical, is not something excluded from the definition of rape as used when determining if an abortion may be funded either.
My point is that there are other cases in which no force or threat of force is used which are also labeled "date-rape". It's those cases I'm talking about. And in case you're still confused as to why this is an issue, ask yourself why anyone would consider limiting abortions for rape victims to those who suffer "forcible rape" to be a "re-definition" of rape? It can only be a re-definition if the existing definition is assumed to be broader than that. Yet, when coming up with an example, you came right around to one involving clear forcible rape.
You're arguing in circles. My definition of rape isn't any different than yours. The only difference is that I'm willing to argue against those who's definition of rape *is*, while you can't seem to get past the label, even when it's clearly being used in a way you don't yourself agree with.
Quote:
Society used to be chock full of perceptions which have been weeded out by prolonged argument, education and legislative changes. There is every reason for rape definitions to be broad and simple. No means No. Coercion means No. Unconsciousness or heavy impairment means No.
I agree. But can we also agree that there's a difference between what *is* and what can be legally proven? And can we agree that when there is this issue of perception, that focusing on the cases where there isn't sufficient evidence to prove anything is a bad idea? A jury can't possibly know if that woman actually said no, or if she was actually unconscious. Baring some physical evidence of force or witness statements or a rape kit showing non-consensual sex, it comes down to one persons word against another, and by principle our legal system should always defer to the defense in that case, right?
I agree that in a perfect world, things like this wouldn't happen. But I also realize that we don't live in that perfect world and by giving women false encouragement to make charges when they aren't going to stick, we're not doing anyone any favors. And when that may fuel the perception about false allegations of rape, it harms others who might have been able to convict their rapist if only they hadn't been scared off by the statistics, or the assumptions of those too used to rape allegations being false or unprovable, and even potentially by the rapist who may be emboldened by those very facts.
Also... Young women may make poor choices about their sexual activities because they are emboldened by all the people telling them that if a guy gets her drunk and has sex with her, it's rape. She might be less careful about putting herself in certain situations under the false belief that the legal system will protect her from the consequences. So instead of taking control of her own outcomes to the best degree possible, she puts her faith in a system which will certainly fail her if something does happen. And that's before even getting into the well documented guilt-avoidance aspect of this. The broadening of date-rape feeds right into that and is IMO incredibly harmful to young women who are already prone to it. We're literally creating more victims here and no one is being helped.
Edited, Feb 8th 2011 5:53pm by gbaji