August 01, 2003

"Our mixed-up rape laws"

Thanks to Dean I read this piece in Slate, about "Our mixed-up rape laws". I don't think I would have read it otherwise, and I am so glad I did.

I found myself nodding in agreement the whole time. Yes, yes, yes.

Now the hysteria is so pronounced, our belief that rape is absolutely THE WORST THING THAT COULD HAPPEN TO ANYBODY EVER (Camille Paglia is eloquent on this point, witheringly eloquent), that nobody can even have a decent discussion on it anymore. Even just being ACCUSED is enough to put a man away forever. Or at least ruin his life, his reputation.

I think Arthur Miller warned about this in The Crucible. We are so intent on protecting the victim, that the defendant is definitely NOT innocent until proven guilty. The fact that she would even come forward and say "He raped me" is enough to convict. Even though it is the case that many women lie. Or turn bad or unpleasant sex into a scream of rape.

The pendulum had to swing away from the "women are liars, women ask for it" attitude. But the pendulum has swung too far, and needs to swing back towards the center, towards some modicum of fairness, of rationality.

Anyone who went to college during the 80s and 90s, and had to listen to "date-rape" lectures, etc. etc., (which always ended up shaming the college-age boys in the room, depicting all college-age guys as animals, ready to "date-rape" women into oblivion) will know what I am talking about.

Great piece.

Posted by sheila | TrackBack
Comments

There were times in the '80s and '90s where it felt like just having a penis made society view you as dangerous.

Posted by: Dean Esmay at August 1, 2003 11:17 AM

Wasn't there a college where they took yearbook photos of guys and turned them into posters with a "potential rapist" label?

Posted by: Bill McCabe at August 1, 2003 02:23 PM

Bill, if that story you tell is true, it is horrible. Witches. My college had a bathroom devoted to "so and so raped me". Now I had some girlfriends in college who were actually raped by drunk guys, and this is no joke. It was AWFUL. But I believe, too, and this has gotten me into a lot of trouble with my more stridently feministic friends, that, especially with college girls, experimenting with alcohol for the first time, "no" does NOT always mean "no."

I'll tell you something: when I have said "no" to someone, there can be no doubt that I freakin' mean NO. I am not passive-aggressive, I am aggressive-aggressive. My "no" is not up to interpretation. But i remember witnessing these wasted girls in college, saying "no" in the weakest cheesiest giggliest way possible. With their shirts falling open, etc. Giving mixed messages because they were never taught, obviously, to stand up for themselves.

A "no" said in that context sure as hell can sound like a "yes".

Anyway. I have a brother. I have a father. And the men I have known have all been awesome. I could never look at all the men I know as "potential rapists". That's ridiculous.

Posted by: red at August 1, 2003 04:01 PM

Let me make myself clear: I am not saying those poor wasted girls deserved what they got.

Absolutely not.

I am saying that BOTH genders need to be really freakin' clear about what they want, what they expect. It's not just on the guys shoulders.

Part of "taking back the night" is to learn to say "NO" in a way that is heard.

Posted by: red at August 1, 2003 04:03 PM

About the poster, I'm sure it was something I heard on the radio 10 years ago or so, so I can't vouch that the story is actually true.

You're right about "no", it should said in a way that's not open to discussion and that convinces the other person of it's meaning.

Posted by: Bill McCabe at August 1, 2003 04:21 PM

Men who have sex with women they do not know very well are risking 15 years in jail.

Posted by: Jake at August 2, 2003 07:56 PM

i spent 17 years in law before going back to school for an engineering degree. 7.5 of that was spent in the prosecutor's office.and i spent 20 years working as an engineer.

most of the women i knew then and most of the women i know now have suffered some form of sexual assault. these women range in careers from managers, directors, in the corporate world as well as state government, to janitors and cleaning women, with a wide mix in between.

when i was growing up, rape was not discussed. it was shameful. when i spent time in court, defense attorneys asked questions such as: "did you enjoy it?", "Did you have an orgasm?", "did you move your hips?" implying of course that if they had done any of these things, they were no longer being raped, but participating and therefor, the defendant didn't commit a crime. the fact is that when this happens, sometimes a woman's body responds in much the same way a knee jerks when a physician strikes a hammer just below the kneecap.

not all men are potential rapists. not all women are potential victims. not all defendants actually raped anyone. not all victims were actually raped.

it isn't what happens in the courtroom right now which is pushing the pendulum, but what happens in the media. it doesn't matter what the crime is, the media reports on it until they've managed to slander everyone involved.

it isn't just what the media has done to kobe bryant or o.j. but what they've done to the victims. the media has a right to report facts. unfortunately, now they also 'report' speculation and wild assed guessing. this isn't journalism, it's editorializing and belongs on the op/ed page or flushed down a toilet.

the media has gone off the deep end. read the columns maureen dowd writes. look at the headlines used to title articles on front pages of newspapers. listen to what is actually said on tv news.

most of it is not news. it's pure, unadulterated gossip.

it gets worse. stab a microphone in the face of a grieving widow and ask her how she feels. this isn't news. it's morbid curiosity. it has no place in media anywhere.

but it isn't just what the media does to individuals. it's also an attempt by the media to create public opinion and control government policy and behavior.

facts are fine. gossip is not.

Posted by: cris at August 3, 2003 11:18 AM

"Innocent until proven guilty" is not a standard I or you or John Doe has to adhere to. It is a legal standard and applies only to the courts. I'm free to judge any person or situation I want based on any standard I choose at any time and for any reason. To believe otherwise is to place emotion ahead of logic and to willfully invalidate the 1st Amendment.

And when lawyers and judges play games releasing or "leanking" only choice bits of information that makes the case that they want made, then they need to take the responsibility for any frenzy of public opinion that works against their wishes. People are going to make judgments based on the information present, whether it is complete or not. We each do it a thousand times a day in the normal course of living. To expect us to stop thinking and analyzing out of "fairness" on selected matters is nonsensical.

Posted by: Tom at August 3, 2003 04:51 PM

no, i beg to differ. innocent until proven guilty is something that we insisted on in this country because in europe and in britain that was rarely the case. trials in those areas were not open to the public and people were frequently railroaded.

...as citizens of this country, we do have a responsibility to remember that unless we were present and actually saw a crime unfold, we don't actually know what happened. it doesn't matter what the nattering media says as frequently it gets it wrong anyway.

and the judges and lawyers with whom i worked did not 'leak' information. the reporters had a right to be present in court and were. all documents relating to a criminal case are public records once they are entered as pleadings in the courtroom or in the clerk's office for that court unless they are sealed. and it is rare that the court will seal them.

some police reports are also public records and as such, reporters have a right to walk into the police depts and ask to see copies of them. they are also free to print/publish what appears in those reports.

.... yes, it's true that we'll form opinions about people we see in the news and hear about. and if we hear the same drivel often enough we'll probably tend to believe that it's true. but the facts remain: if you weren't there in person at the time it happened, you do not really know what the truth of the matter is. so open mind are essential.

if each of us ignores that, where are the open minds for juries going to come from? what happens to our system?

Posted by: cris at August 6, 2003 10:42 PM