TexasCHLforum.com

57Coastie wrote:

chabouk wrote:

57Coastie wrote:

chabouk wrote:SNIP if the interviewee said she had ever gotten drunk and woken up with a stranger and didn't remember consenting, they scored it as rape.

If in this case she was telling the truth is it your position that this would not be rape?

There is no way to know. Not remembering the details the next morning doesn't automatically presume that she was passed out at the time. In my college days I saw (and perhaps did) a lot of things done with intent and great enthusiasm, which the participants had to be reminded about after they sobered up.

WHOA! It is time for a reality check here. It might actually save a man's freedom, or even his life. If one of "the things a participant had to be reminded about after [she] sobered up" was sexual relations, the man is likely a rapist, whether or not he in good faith thinks the relations were consensual.

Sorry, but there is a way to know. A jury will tell you the answer. Not a judge -- a jury of one's peers. The judge will instruct the jury that they must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the female did not give her informed consent, or lawyers' words to that effect. The only thing a jury is always instructed to "presume" is that, going in, the defendant is considered to be innocent. The prosecutor must overcome that heavy burden beyond any reasonable doubt in order for the defendant to be convicted. There is seldom a witness to what a defendant alleges was consensual relations, so it must always be recognized that it often boils down to "He said, she said." Unfair? Perhaps. But perhaps not. In any event, to borrow an ancient truism, nobody ever said the law is always fair. Ultimately a jury must answer the question, in one way or another, even though it is a difficult one.

If one chooses to be a "denier" of what the law is, he opens the door to being convicted of a horrible crime. If that gal next to you at the bar looks more and more attractive, and more and more inducing, after each beer you down, beware. You are staring right into the chance of serious trouble.

Jim

For the sake of argument, do we not still hold individuals accountable for their decisions even while they are intoxicated? If the man, in good faith believes, or in fact did, receive consent, can the the other participant renege after the fact? My solution is also to stay away from these situations altogether, but I know plenty of guys who haven't.

Purplehood wrote:The situation as described above sucks for all parties involved. I don't see how there can be a winner despite the findings of a jury. Both parties drunk and one decides that it wasn't consensual is a moral nightmare.

As usual, you are correct, Purplehood. Sometimes there is no winner; sometimes everyone is a loser. Having seen this situation first hand arise more than once, with alcoholic beverages often at the root, I must admit that I have rationalized the sometimes possibly tragic result as being the fact that one of the parties, if not both, was not man or woman enough to handle the booze, which led in turn to loss of control over emotions and senses. In that respect I can guarantee you this: if the jury is convinced that the woman was intoxicated, on either alcohol or drugs, the man's chance of prevailing is lessened immensely. He has made the jury's job easier, or, at least, given the jury a hook to hang its verdict on and rationalize it in its own collective mind.

Jim

Drewthetexan wrote: For the sake of argument, do we not still hold individuals accountable for their decisions even while they are intoxicated? If the man, in good faith believes, or in fact did, receive consent, can the the other participant renege after the fact? My solution is also to stay away from these situations altogether, but I know plenty of guys who haven't.

The law (and gentlemanly behavior I might add) allow that consent can be revoked at any time and any and all activities previously consented to should come to an immediate halt.

That doesn't mean somebody should be allowed to lie about what was consented to, but it does mean you don't get a free pass to finish the deal, if somebody changes her mind along the way.

Sorry folks, these statistics are bogus.

"One in five college women will be raped, or experience an attempted rape, before graduation. Less than 5 percent will report these crimes to officials on or off campus, and, when they do, there's a good chance the system will let them down."

The "less than 5 percent report these crimes" is your tipoff. This is a study, done by a special interest group, most likely looking for grant funding. Sure, rapes do occur on college campuses as well as other places, but these stats are scare tactics by someone looking for federal funds. Statistics can be manipulated to say just about anything. If you took actual police reports of rapes, and whittled those down to actual convictions, you would have some great statistics to argue that rape very rarely happens on college campuses. We know that would not be accurate either. The truth is somewhere in the middle, but nowhere near 1 in 5.

57Coastie wrote:

chabouk wrote:

57Coastie wrote:

chabouk wrote:SNIP if the interviewee said she had ever gotten drunk and woken up with a stranger and didn't remember consenting, they scored it as rape.

If in this case she was telling the truth is it your position that this would not be rape?

There is no way to know. Not remembering the details the next morning doesn't automatically presume that she was passed out at the time. In my college days I saw (and perhaps did) a lot of things done with intent and great enthusiasm, which the participants had to be reminded about after they sobered up.

WHOA! It is time for a reality check here. It might actually save a man's freedom, or even his life. If one of "the things a participant had to be reminded about after [she] sobered up" was sexual relations, the man is likely a rapist, whether or not he in good faith thinks the relations were consensual.

"WHOA!" is right. The man is likely a rapist despite a good faith belief things are consensual?

You might not have much experience with drunks, but I've known a couple who would be in blackout when a casual observer wouldn't even suspect they were tipsy. You don't have to be falling-down-passed-out drunk to not remember details of the night before. And you certainly don't have to be blotto to make decisions you'll regret the next day. That's what I was talking about: regret isn't rape.

Sorry, but there is a way to know. A jury will tell you the answer.

You mean juries like the ones who said Cameron Todd Willingham was a murderer, and O.J. Simpson wasn't?

Drewthetexan wrote:SNIPFor the sake of argument, do we not still hold individuals accountable for their decisions even while they are intoxicated? SNIP

Only sometimes, Drew, only sometimes. Not when an intoxicated woman is incapable to giving informed consent to sexual relations. But, as to the man making the dumb drunken decision to cuddle up when both parties were intoxicated, even if he thinks, if indeed he can think with the appropriate organ, his brain, it is consensual, the answer is generally different.

While this may appear unfair to a man, I doubt that it does to a woman. Let us not forget that a very low percentage of rapes are reported to the authorities, for, in the mind of the woman, very good reasons. So it is no surprise that the law comes down hard when a credible report is made by a victim.

And, I am sure to the happiness of the forum, I rest my case.

Jim

Teach your girls self defense
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u4oXXL1 ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
God I love King of the hill

marksiwel wrote:Teach your girls self defense
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1u4oXXL1 ... re=related" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
God I love King of the hill

Mine is taking Karate and she shoots the P22 sometimes. She also shot rifles in summer camp. We call it her Ninja training.

Has anybody here read "The Dark Side of Man: Tracing the Origins of Male Violence" by Michael Ghiglieri? It has an interesting treatment of the subject of rape in humans and other primate species, among other things.

I was thinking that a similar statistic came out seemed like a decade or more ago. I think it may even have said 1 in 4 women. If I remember right, it was a bit off the wall in what it classified as a positive for the statistic.

Despite this being a very serious subject, I think it would be better to see the statistics broken out so we can see it a bit more honestly. Rolling it all up to get a more shocking number doesn't help the cause IMO.

karder wrote:Sorry folks, these statistics are bogus.

"One in five college women will be raped, or experience an attempted rape, before graduation. Less than 5 percent will report these crimes to officials on or off campus, and, when they do, there's a good chance the system will let them down."

The "less than 5 percent report these crimes" is your tipoff. This is a study, done by a special interest group, most likely looking for grant funding. Sure, rapes do occur on college campuses as well as other places, but these stats are scare tactics by someone looking for federal funds. Statistics can be manipulated to say just about anything. If you took actual police reports of rapes, and whittled those down to actual convictions, you would have some great statistics to argue that rape very rarely happens on college campuses. We know that would not be accurate either. The truth is somewhere in the middle, but nowhere near 1 in 5.

I agree. Whenever you see "studies" and "reports" claiming to quantify "unreported events" you know you are reading a fairytale. For about 15 years, 85% of my docket consisted of defending medical malpractice cases. That's when I learned that there are very very few legitimate, accurate studies concerning medical/medicine issues, or any other subject matter. Why? Because it's virtually impossible to study (in the scientific sense) any phenomenon you cannot control. If you can't keep your study population in the lab, then your study is flawed. Another major factor is the inability to establish a control group. What about the accuracy or honesty of the study cohort? Every time you add an element you cannot control, reliability takes a major hit. So when I hear people say something like "Studies prove . . ." or "studies show . . ." the warning bells start ringing. Throughout all of my practice I've been able to gut so-called experts and their vaunted "studies" and "research." Why? Because there is a lot of result-oriented junk science being created to further a cause or goal. Sometime the goals are honorable and desirable, sometimes not. But no matter the goal, junk science is just that -- junk -- and anyone who relies upon it to push an agenda is dangerous.

It will surprise most folks to know that the very first step taken by true experts in evaluating a "study" is to ask yourself "does this pass the smell test?" In other words, are the results even within the realm of reason? Do I believe that 20% of the female college student population will be the targets of completed or attempted rape? Not for a nanosecond do I believe that! Did they get that number by manipulating the definition of "rape" as did the Brady Campaign when its "study" came to the now infamous "47 times more likely" lie? Without seeing the exact details of the study, the definitions used, the questions asked, and the "study" cohort, how can we even think of accepting a result that defies reason?

Since my comments are going to be viewed by some as minimizing the gravity of a woman being raped, let me say:

• Rape is wrong, both morally and legally;
  A woman has a right to say no anytime she wishes, even after things have gotten "heated;"
  A man who 1) stays sober; 2) gets a woman drunk; then 3) has sex with her has committed rape, in my view;
  Do some rapes go unreported? Yes. Is is possible to quantify them or estimate them? No.
  Is consensual sex sometimes later claimed to be rape? Yes. Is is possible to quantity them or estimate them? No.

Those are my views on the law and moral conduct. I think most of us agree on this, perhaps with some variance on the effect of alcohol on either or both parties. But proving these facts is an entirely different matter. In cases of violent rape, the evidence is usually clear and convincing, but not so in what some have come to call "date rape." When one party says the sex was consensual and the other claims it was not, are we to automatically believe the one who says it was not? Are we to discount the complaints of the alleged victim simply by arguing "she should have known better than put herself in that position?" The answer to both questions should be "no" so how do we decide these cases if we are on the jury? Thankfully, I haven't been on such a jury so I haven't had to face this terrible responsibility.

Let's remember that it is easy to say, "If he did this, then it's rape," but this presumes the evidence is clear and convincing. The difficulty lies in deciding what each party actually did, said, implied, or ratified. When we blindly accept a 20% rape ratio we make it possible to pass absurd legislation like the Lautenberg Amendment to the Violence Against Women Act. Condemn the evil act we must; accept unsubstantiated "statistics" as to its frequency we must not.

Chas.

Purplehood wrote:The situation as described above sucks for all parties involved. I don't see how there can be a winner despite the findings of a jury. Both parties drunk and one decides that it wasn't consensual is a moral nightmare.

That's what the video camera's for...

But seriously, I've had female friends who would be all over some guy at a party and then the next morning claim he raped her and try to get me to go fight him. I'm sorry, but if you're begging for it, don't be surprised when you get it. I've suggested they report it, but I don't know of anyone who ever has.

That having been said, I avoid anything serious with a girl who's been drinking. Seen too many of those things end in jail time. If I'm really that amazing we can hang out when she's sober.

Speaking of the "smell test", anyone who has been to college has made the acquaintance of at least a couple of hundred women, and known at least a couple dozen well enough to be in their circle of friends.

In other words, if the "1 in 5" figure is correct, the average college graduate should know at least five women who were raped.

I don't know about other people, but I didn't know of a single claim of rape while I was at college (admittedly it was a smaller school, about 3,600 students at that time, but that made it even more likely for gossip to spread).

I did know a man (one of my fraternity brothers) who was raped. He was an athletic trainer. A scholarship basketball player from Nigeria, with the help of two friends, raped him in the locker room. There was no prosecution. They just revoked his scholarship, thus his student visa, and shipped him back to Nigeria.

There wasn't a single reported case of a woman being raped, though.

chabouk wrote: There wasn't a single reported case of a woman being raped, though.

Uh, they're not going to tell *you* about it.

My wife was sexually molested as a teen and I'm one of the few people she's ever told about it. After we were engaged. She is pretty sure that another girl in her neighborhood was molested by the same person because after it happened to her, a few months later, another family and her molesters family got in a big dispute that led to the other girls family moving away. She never told her mom for various reasons and her dad was away often due to his job at the time. Her mom was kind of a flake, so I guess even at 13, she had the intuition not to bring it up. None of this was ever reported to the police. This was in the mid 1970's.

It is mostly a area of discussion closed to men. From what she relates, some of her friends have had similar experiences as teens or in college. It happens often and it is frequently not reported because the system and families often want to deny the possibility that they allowed it to happen.

The statistic as I've heard it is that 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted or raped "by the time they get out of college" not necessarily "at college". I can't vouch for the 1 in 5 statistic, but I know enough not to doubt that it could be close. It is not organizations grovelling for grant money or other hidden agendas. It is reality.

android wrote:

chabouk wrote: There wasn't a single reported case of a woman being raped, though.

Uh, they're not going to tell *you* about it.

My wife was sexually molested as a teen and I'm one of the few people she's ever told about it. After we were engaged. She is pretty sure that another girl in her neighborhood was molested by the same person because after it happened to her, a few months later, another family and her molesters family got in a big dispute that led to the other girls family moving away. She never told her mom for various reasons and her dad was away often due to his job at the time. Her mom was kind of a flake, so I guess even at 13, she had the intuition not to bring it up. None of this was ever reported to the police. This was in the mid 1970's.

It is mostly a area of discussion closed to men. From what she relates, some of her friends have had similar experiences as teens or in college. It happens often and it is frequently not reported because the system and families often want to deny the possibility that they allowed it to happen.

The statistic as I've heard it is that 1 in 5 women are sexually assaulted or raped "by the time they get out of college" not necessarily "at college". I can't vouch for the 1 in 5 statistic, but I know enough not to doubt that it could be close.

I would be willing to bet that a few of the women you already know have been raped. Some, that you would least suspect, because they come across as strong, confident women. You just never know.

T.