Isn't this a reasonable statement about rape?

Question

mutterhals said this as part of an answer and it really works for me:

"It should not be a source of shame for the accuser, nor should it entail a de facto guilty verdict for the accused."

I wish that that was how it is. I don't know how close we are to it :(

Answer 1

It's a more than reasonable statement. It's an absolute truth. I'm glad you asked this question. People seem to think that rape is a joke or some form of punishment in some cases.
For example, male on male prison rape is often looked at as a just punishment for a convicted felon that everyone dislikes.
It's allowed in the prsion system as a means of control. Rape is used as a means of power through force, degradation and humiliation. At no time should anyone blame a victim male or female for a rapists actions.

I've thought for months about just how unsafe we are as a society because of the failure by the prison system to rehabilitate the criminal population. I believe gender study type education would be a big help in reducing rape and violence. Something needs to be done to dismantle the train of thought that leads males to practice physical subjugation.
Not only is it a threat to females but also males who are straight or gay. Gay bashing is also related to this. Until we lose the idea that a male who is attracted to males is really not a male and is a form of woman to abuse we will continue to see male rape esculate and more males in regulation population attacked by "revolving door" sex offenders. Firstly, we must destroy the idea that any female asks to be raped. That's number one priority. Perhaps after that solutions to male on male rape can follow.

Answer 2

"It should not be a source of shame for the accuser, nor should it entail a de facto guilty verdict for the accused."

I agree with this statement somewhat but I would like to add a few things. While it is true that there are rape shield laws, the burden of proof is always on the victim. Even with evidence, it is rare to see a rape case that's a "slam dunk" win for the prosecution. That's assuming the case even makes it to trial. And it doesn't always make it to trial.

If it does go to trial I worry that someone who is innocent goes to trial and is convicted...while a rapist that is guilty as the day is long pleads down to a misdemeanor assault and doesn't end up spending time in jail and doesn't end up on the sex offender registry. <--this happened to my sister.

Answer 3

When a rape actually occurred, it SHOULD NOT be a source of shame for the victim. The only shame the accuser should ever feel would be after a FALSE accusation of rape.

To be fair, an accusation of rape should never bring about a de facto statement of guilt. Only a trial should EVER lead to declaraion or judgement of guilt on the part of the accused.

There are always he-said, she-said situations. Without proof they are hard as hell to decide. There is no way to be sure without witnesses or physical evidence. And all too often the evidence is questionable as to circumstances. If the woman thought the man had threatened her, but the man honestly didn't think he had done so, you have two honest - but vastly different opinions. Lawyers will tell you that happens so often that they could retire if they only got a nickel for each such case.

Having said that, this society has yet to shed its puritanical roots - that tell us that sex is dirty. This is a case where I think nearly ALL major religions get it wrong.

When you are brought up with the notion that sex is dirty and you've just had sex that you didn't want to have, you feel shame because you were indoctrinated by someone who hated to have fun. (Yes, that IS an accusation against religions that take the simplistic view of teaching children about sex.) No, I'm not saying that the rape was fun. I'm saying that BY ASSOCIATION, what happened to you had the double-barreled effect of making you feel helpless after the assault AND dirty because as we all know, sex is dirty. A double whammy, so to speak.

Similarly, when a man is accused of rape, people tend to believe it - because they want to feel better that someone else. They think "I didn't commit rape and you did. I have better self control. So nyah-nyah-na-nyah-yah!" And they want to believe that most men - themselves excluded, of course - are just one hair above brutes, ready to revert to barbarism at a moment's notice.

If this were TRULY an enlightened society, folks would more correctly recognize that rape - when it actually occurs - is not a sex act but an assault of a specific type. They would drop the "dirty sex" viewpoint entirely and just call rape what it is - a vicious person's power trip over someone easily intimidated.

Answer 4

I think we are far from it. In fact I think it is quite the opposite. I think many rape victims feel as though it is somehow their fault and even told that by a few. I also think the accused is socially guilty the minute the accusation is made.

I agree with you, ideally society would have a very different view on these situations, but I think society in general wants to point fingers and make someone "pay"....even if there is nothing for them to pay for.

Answer 5

I see exactly where Mutterhals is coming from and wholeheartedly agree. If it were such a 'shameful' crime (to have committed upon you) it would be so much easier for guilty party's to have justice served.

I'm somewhat perplexed by Jade's answer though:
"makes sense. As i man i'm embarassed by animals who can't control themselves there is nothin manly about raping women. However there needs to be trial my issue is that in a rape case the victims sexual history is allowed in but not the rapists criminal history. Which is bs. Whether its a hookr or the first lady no women should be raped period
And when bubba makes the rapist his girl justice is done"
As a man, I too am ashamed of those men who commit these crimes and I agree - nothing manly about it at all (equally, nothing feminine about the teachers who do this to young boys). However, I think you'll find that the victim has a thing called "rape shield law" which ensures 'her' history cannot be used in any context while the rapists criminal history CAN be referred to IF it is pertinent (e.g. if 'he' has raped many times & been reported).
I think you may be slightly misinformed there, Jade.
I am, however, quite shocked to see you promoting rape as a means to an end. I'm sure feminists here will be equally disgusted as I am with that comment.

Answer 6

Rape is never the fault of the victim. Sometimes I think choices a girl makes, (example: riding with someone that they just met), those can deciding factors has to whether the rape happens at all! But no, nobody should be ashamed that is raped! The only person that SHOULD BE would be the rapist himself!

Answer 7

makes sense. As i man i'm embarassed by animals who can't control themselves there is nothin manly about raping women. However there needs to be trial my issue is that in a rape case the victims sexual history is allowed in but not the rapists criminal history. Which is bs. Whether its a hookr or the first lady no women should be raped period

And when bubba makes the rapist his girl justice is done

Answer 8

Ideally it is a fair statement, But in reality the crime is more complex, If only it was true.

Answer 9

I think the first clause is a bit strong. It almost makes you think mutterhals wants people to brag that they've been raped.

Answer 10

I just don't understand why people who are accused of raping someone get thrown into a cell with someone that is going to rape you. Kind of like double-jeopardy dont-cha-tink?Thanks and have a nice day Waterwings.