Can't we all just get along?

[Fiona]

I have been saddened by the recent threads on violence and sexual assault and I had largely withdrawn from the discussion because they are not doing anything other than polarising something which should not divide us in this way. It is deeply depressing. But I have been led to try again because people have shared some very personal experiences and those should not be dismissed. They do teach us something, and playground insults back and forth don't achieve that. This issue is important to me. I have not chosen to vote in the sexual assault poll, because I do not think such a poll can have any meaningful results, even in principle: but anecdotes honestly shared may do. And so as a prelude to these remarks I will also share: I do not find this easy. I am generally a private person and this is not something I have discussed. So if you find it funny, or my perceptions unreasonable, then I do ask you to couch any response with some respect for me: even it you wish to criticise my actions. [/ pathetic attempt at self-protection]

I have had a place of my own from quite an early age, and I live in a city. I have relatives who live much further north, and from time to time they have friends who need to overnight in my town- to go to a concert or to get an early flight on holiday or whatever. And sometimes other friends also had people who needed a bed for the night for various reasons. I was always willing to offer this: I was aware it might not be wholly sensible but what counts as sense for women strikes me as life-limiting: it is based on fear and I do not think that fear is proportionate to the risk. You may disagree: but that is what I believe. And for a long time I had no reason to change my mind.

On one occasion I was out with my friend and her boyfriend. His brother was also there and he lived out of town. The plan was he would travel home but we were having a good time and he did not leave in time to get the last train. That happens. We were all drinking. I had a spare bed and they did not: and it seemed reasonable to me that he should stay at my place rather than theirs. I honestly thought little about this: it was not so unusual. I do not flirt and he had made no move to make me think there was anything on his mind. And so I took him home.

When I used to do this I sometimes made a point of setting out clearly what was on offer: it was a little insulting but I sometimes found it necessary: and occasionally that needed to be re-iterated when we got to my home. It was never any more than having to state it (firmly. just a few times) and it was not something I always did cos it did strike me as a little presumptuous: it is not my experience that men are not fussy, frankly.

On this occasion I did not do this. We had been drinking, as I said. I made coffee when we got to my flat and after a bit of unimportant chat he fell asleep in my living room. So I did what you do: I put a duvet over him and went to bed.

I was soundly asleep. I did not hear the door open. I knew he was there when he climbed into my bed.I was half awake: I remember asking what he was doing and saying he was in the wrong room. I wasn't that worried - he had been drunk and he got lost in a strange (though very small) flat. I thought. But he did not speak to me. He got into my bed and he made it plain he intended to have sex. I came fully awake. I got scared. He would not speak and he just carried on. I shut up. I offered no resistance at all. I was paralysed - maybe it was shock, or maybe I am not very assertive. It is still a surprise to me. I did not think I would react like that, and as I choose to see myself I still cannot believe it: but that is what happened. I lay there and allowed this to happen and I was terrified.

He did not hurt me. He did not speak to me and when he was done he fell asleep quite quickly. And I just lay there for a while. My bed was in what is called a recess so there were walls on three sides. And he was on the open side. I was afraid to try to get out.

I could not stay there, obviously. I eventually realised he was well out of it and I climbed over him and out. I did not cry or anything: I think I was frozen. But I did shower. For ages and ages. I could not get the smell of him off me. And that smell was the most repulsive thing I have ever smelled. I do not know if there was something wrong with him: probably not. But that is the truth - his semen stank to my perception. And so did I.

I did not know what to do and I am sorry to say that I stayed in the bathroom with the door locked and I did not come out till I heard him leave. And he did leave in the morning, some time. I heard him go and I was still afraid to come out. But I had to of course. And he was gone.

My own response to some of the questions raised in the other thread:

I did not become aroused: I know that some women do but I did not

I did not see it as rape. I had offered no real resistance and since he did not threaten me I could not be sure he would not have stopped if I had: so I felt responsible. At the same time I knew I had been raped. I cannot explain that any better: part of me was seeing it as I had been raised to see it: and part of me knew better. I know that is not very clear but I can do no better

I am not sure what he thought it was: I was conscious that he might have thought I had allowed him to come home with me for sex; and he might have thought he had reneged on his part of the bargain when he fell asleep. I had not had the "ground rules" conversation you see: and it is possible he saw things quite differently

I was very sure that people would think it served me right. I took him home and I did not really know him. We are not supposed to do that. I knew it. I chose to take that risk and that was my responsibility. I could not bear the fact that all the things I had been brought up to believe about men had this degree of truth and I could hear "I told you so" in my head.

I no longer take men home: if you are male and you are stuck in my city without a bed you will not stay in my home. Sorry. I am aware that is wholly irrational. It is confirmation bias at work, I do realise. I had many instances where that did not happen and only one where it did. But "one-trial-learning" exists and I cannot overcome it no matter how ridiculous it appears to me in objective terms.

I wholly resent the limitation this puts on my freedom to be the kind of person I want to be: but I cannot help it. It has changed my life. I still take some risks: I still try very hard not to stereotype on the basis of gender. But I am more afraid of men than I used to be and that is not fully under my control.

Right. I am not sure if that is of any relevance to what I wish to discuss: but it is what I have to share and I want to use it as a background for what I hope will be a rather more objective thread than we have seen so far

I have said many times in various threads here that the fear of violence and sexual assault is very real for women: it affects our day to day lives so profoundly that we do not always notice it is even there. Many do not invite men to stay the night ( well sensible lassies don't)even if the man is stuck for a bed; and most do not go out without making certain how we will get home: many women do not go out alone much at all. If we are out alone at night most of us are very alert and (if sober) we walk purposefully and we do not feel comfortable if there is a man on the street. Some of us have realised that how you dress makes no difference at all: and so young women are often "provocative", as it was described in another thread. Good if that is what they want to do: perhaps it is the same kind of stance I was making, differently expressed. Or not. I cannot speak for other women as individuals. These are just a few examples and they do not apply to us all: but we have all been brought up with a lot of mythology and it is in some ways the same mythology that men are brought up with. It is not true - rape is not a crime perpetrated against a lone women on the street by a stranger: not usually. But that is the fear that informs a lot of what we do: that is "real rape" as we have been taught. And it is also what men have been taught: I have no doubt that things have moved on and that we all know this is a myth: but we do not overcome such myths easily and that one lingers. And of course you cannot prove a negative: since we go to such lengths to avoid that situation we cannot know how often it would happen if we didn't: so it never goes away.

My argument is that for women rape of all sorts is an overblown but very real fear: and I would like men to truly understand this. When we argue very forcefully that it is so, some men seem to hear "you are a violent rapist": and that is not at all what is being said: at least by me. I am honestly trying to express how this looks from my point of view. We have made a lot of progress: 50 years ago none of the woman's perspective was heard at all. I am in awe of the brave women who gave us the voice we have now. The law only changed very recently and the underlying attitudes are still strong. That is why the attrition rate in rape cases is so high, imo: and it is why women like me are so afraid of some of the arguments raised not least on this board.

As a counter to that I have to also acknowledge that the fear of false accusation is very real for men. It is also overblown: also a myth in the same sense. But I have spoken to many men and it is clear to me that this is just as real for them. Women need to understand that; perhaps most do, but I can say I did not for a long time: it was not part of my upbringing. We are all better at understanding those things which are immediately threatening to us: less good at seeing other people's real fears. So when men raise that spectre in discussion what I hear most easily is "you are lying slut". And I do not think that is what they are trying to say either.

With such a dialogue it is hardly surprising both sides get angry: and we see daft arguments which it is hard to see as honest. For my own part the redefinition of violence so that it is equal for both genders is very hard to hear: because men do kill and rape women in big numbers and that is not true the other way around: yes it happens that women murder and maim men. And there are some cases where women rape men; I have no doubt. But for me these fears are not very strong in men because I do not see it modify their behaviour. I may be wrong about that: perhaps they really do fear to take a woman home in case she rapes them or murders them: but I do not see that.

I do see that some men modify their behaviour for fear of false allegations: and if they fear to take a woman home it is more likely that is the source of that fear. Again I may be wrong. But if that is correct then we are not going to make any progress in understanding each other if we try to equate two very different things: I find it hard to believe that anyone really believes women are as dangerous as men, in physical terms; and so I suspect a different agenda when that is brought up. I am sorry if that is incorrect and the men who raise it are truly physically scared: but it is honestly difficult for me to take that at face value and it looks like changing the subject, from where I am sitting. I am aware that many men feel they are dismissed unheard and that women get all the sympathy: if that is true it is very new. I do not think it is true, as it happens. But the fact that they feel that way also interests me and I wonder why this happens? And I would like an honest discussion if it possible to have one. I don't want this thread to turn into a train wreck. So if anyone is interested in having this discussion and trying to understand each other better then I would like to hear from you: but I do not want any more mudslinging. It is an emotive issue for us all.

And if this thread could be moved to a private area I would be very glad: but I have chosen to put this up without any such expectation and that too is my responsibility.

 

[Cainkane1]

I was never raped but I was fondled when I was 11 by a friend of mines Uncle. I didn't like it and I can't imagine what a woman goes through when some scumbag actually rapes some unfortunant lady. I'm sorry this happened to you. Men can be raped but its usually by another man and if a women rapes a man its usually with an object.

 

[gtc]

I do see that some men modify their behaviour for fear of false allegations: and if they fear to take a woman home it is more likely that is the source of that fear.

This is pretty anecdotal but few men would worry enough about being raped by a woman to alter their behaviour. On the other hand the fear of an allegation of rape or sexual harrasment, whether the allegation is entirely invented or is a result of a misinterpretation, does alter men's behaviour and is something that men are warned about from an early age (no means no and even if she says yes now are you sure she won't regret it later?).

Personally, I would be wary about having a female stranger in my house because of the risk she could rob me. I imagine women feel similarly.

Male on male rape is a serious problem. However, I think the risk for an man going about their day-to-day business is much lower than for a woman.

 

[PhantomWolf]

My biggest beef is that males tend to be disbelieved when it comes to these topics. Today's society has the image of men being predators picking on the weaker less able sex. Now even I will admit that women are more likely to be injured, killed, and sexually assulted by men than men are to be by women, but the belief that women can't be the aggressors and predators is just as wrong and harmful as the belief that all men are abusers and rapists.

Physical and Sexual abuse should be taken seriously regardless of who is the attacker and who is the victim. The view that men can't be raped by or assulted by a women prevents them from actually coming forward, and when they are called liars or otherwise riducled when they do get up the courage to come forward, it just does more damage.

Likely one of the reasons that men don't fear being raped by women is because it is a general belief that it can't happen, or that men always want it so if some woman does it when it doesn't want too, well he really wanted it anyway. What people don't seem to realise is that the same emotional scaring that women suffer from these attacks is suffered by men when they get attacked, but unlike women who now have the support stuctures to help them cope, men have nothing and aren't allowed to be emotional.

The sooner society realises and accepts that victims of abuse come in all shapes and sizes and both sexes, and the sooner that a number of the Feminist groups come to understand that recognising abuse of males won't downgrade or minimise the abuse of females, the sooner we can all move on as a society and get these issues fixed.

 

[SimonD]

Thank-you Fiona, for sharing your story. It was a brave thing to do.

 

[Fiona]

My biggest beef is that males tend to be disbelieved when it comes to these topics.

I think that people tend to be disbelieved when it comes to these topics. Phantomwolf. That is why I posted the attrition figures for rape allegations. I understand that men feel that they are the less believed but the evidence does not bear that out. This is part of what I am trying to discuss: it is the same kind of myth, IMO.

Today's society has the image of men being predators picking on the weaker less able sex.

I don't think that is a new thing, though. Again this is part of what I am trying to say. This is what women have been taught forever. What I do think is different is that this now out there for discussion. The woman's voice is being heard as strongly as the man's. So you are hearing this myth, and it is just as uncomfortable as the other one of the duplicitous lying female.

Now even I will admit that women are more likely to be injured, killed, and sexually assulted by men than men are to be by women, but the belief that women can't be the aggressors and predators is just as wrong and harmful as the belief that all men are abusers and rapists.

I do not think it is just as harmful, because I do not think that it leads men to change their behaviour, in general. It is just as harmful for anyone who is a victim of female aggression and predation: but it is not something with wider impact in the same way

Physical and Sexual abuse should be taken seriously regardless of who is the attacker and who is the victim.

Certainly

The view that men can't be raped by or assulted by a women prevents them from actually coming forward, and when they are called liars or otherwise riducled when they do get up the courage to come forward, it just does more damage.

Phantomwolf, that is not a difference between the genders: it is a similarity. Women are not deterred by the idea it cannot happen, that is true: they are disbelieved and humiliated on a different rationale. And that also does profound damage. We need to recognise the myths at work and counter them wherever they arise. Polarising this does not help

Likely one of the reasons that men don't fear being raped by women is because it is a general belief that it can't happen,

Perhaps. I doubt it but I would like to hear from other men on the subject. Are you suggesting that if the true incidence were known men would have reason to be as frightened as women? That they should be? Do other men see it like this?

or that men always want it so if some woman does it when it doesn't want too, well he really wanted it anyway.

Yes perhaps: how is that different from "she was asking for it". Or " she consented then lied"?

Again this is a problem within the conception of rape, at least to some extent. I do agree that one of the myths which is around is that men are indiscriminate: it is often reinforced by men themselves: take a look at some of the flirting and banter around. Much of it is predicated on that idea and that is why I will not flirt. But most people enjoy that stuff and most know it is not true. I do think it informs our mindset at a less conscious level, but that is controversial and a topic for another thread. That myth is stronger in the normal run:but when it comes to responses to the rape victim I do not think there is that much difference.

What people don't seem to realise is that the same emotional scaring that women suffer from these attacks is suffered by men when they get attacked,

I think people do fully realise that, at least in the case of male on male rape. I think we do not have enough evidence to show it is not appreciated in the case of female on male rape: but I certainly assume it is equally scarring for the individual.

but unlike women who now have the support stuctures to help them cope, men have nothing and aren't allowed to be emotional.

That is simply not true. Rape crisis is available to anyone who is raped, and much of the evidence and publicity about male rape comes from those centres. I think what you are really saying is that you are inhibited by what you perceive as the expectations upon you: and that is just as true for women. One of the reasons women do not report rape and sexual assault is their perception that they are responsible because they stepped outside of those expectations in some aspect of their behaviour. Again a similarity, not a difference

The sooner society realises and accepts that victims of abuse come in all shapes and sizes and both sexes,

That is recognised I think. What is not recognised is that men are as often victims, and that is because that is not true.

and the sooner that a number of the Feminist groups come to understand that recognising abuse of males won't downgrade or minimise the abuse of females, the sooner we can all move on as a society and get these issues fixed.

I think you do not understand how loaded this has been historically: nor how recently the woman's perspective has been part of informing the debate and framing the law. I am afraid that I have to say that my belief is that arguing that this is an equal problem - that women are as violent as men or as likely to sexually assault them does actually have the effect of minimising the abuse of women: because to do it you have to equate very different things. I know that skeptigirl's insistence on this in the other thread has been buried in other issues: but this remains an important thing. I repeat: the victim of abuse is worthy of the same help and support no matter what gender they are: and the difficulties of dealing with it are pretty much the same.( I will add the caveat that, since it is a bigger problem for women, and so many women are now brave enough and articulate enough to talk about it, it is probably a little easier for them than it used to be: if men do suffer abuse as much, then they must take those same brave steps: but few have. I think this is because it is a smaller pool but whatever the reason "brothers have to do it for themselves", because only brothers can tell us how it really is). Me-too-ism is not neutral Phantomwolf. Can you understand that?

 

[GreNME]

Fiona,

First and foremost I wanted to say that I appreciate your frankness and open-ness on the subject. I personally don't think that anything you did in the experience you related was incorrect or wrong, and I don't think you were in the wrong to have been doing what you did prior to the experience. It may not mean anything coming from an unknown person on the internet, but I firmly feel that it was in no way your fault. You have as much right to live your life the way you feel comfortable as I do, as far as I'm concerned, and I bristle somewhat at the reality that you are (at least in some ways) restricted from being able to do so.

My argument is that for women rape of all sorts is an overblown but very real fear: and I would like men to truly understand this. When we argue very forcefully that it is so, some men seem to hear "you are a violent rapist": and that is not at all what is being said: at least by me. I am honestly trying to express how this looks from my point of view. We have made a lot of progress: 50 years ago none of the woman's perspective was heard at all. I am in awe of the brave women who gave us the voice we have now. The law only changed very recently and the underlying attitudes are still strong. That is why the attrition rate in rape cases is so high, imo: and it is why women like me are so afraid of some of the arguments raised not least on this board.

As a counter to that I have to also acknowledge that the fear of false accusation is very real for men. It is also overblown: also a myth in the same sense. But I have spoken to many men and it is clear to me that this is just as real for them. Women need to understand that; perhaps most do, but I can say I did not for a long time: it was not part of my upbringing. We are all better at understanding those things which are immediately threatening to us: less good at seeing other people's real fears. So when men raise that spectre in discussion what I hear most easily is "you are lying slut". And I do not think that is what they are trying to say either.

With such a dialogue it is hardly surprising both sides get angry: and we see daft arguments which it is hard to see as honest. For my own part the redefinition of violence so that it is equal for both genders is very hard to hear: because men do kill and rape women in big numbers and that is not true the other way around: yes it happens that women murder and maim men. And there are some cases where women rape men; I have no doubt. But for me these fears are not very strong in men because I do not see it modify their behaviour. I may be wrong about that: perhaps they really do fear to take a woman home in case she rapes them or murders them: but I do not see that.

As has been stated, there probably are cases where a man wouldn't take a woman home because of fear of rape, but in such cases (where a man wouldn't take a woman home) the men more likely are concerned about instances where they would be accused of something they didn't do. I can state with certainty my own behavior, which in the past involved me not willing to take home a stranger because I didn't want to invite a scenario where any mixed signals would be had or given, and instead meant I would either get to know someone better or the intent and desires from each of us would be laid out pretty honestly before we stepped into a private setting together. In cases where we hadn't expressly given our mutual intents, my default behavior would be to assume that nothing more was going to happen than what was invited or made clear as things progressed. I know the description is a little bit vague, but it basically involved a mostly heuristic interaction level where as little room was left for question as possible throughout the encounter. I'm with someone now, so a lot of it looks in hindsight like I may have been a bit overly timid in some situations, but better that than to be overly aggressive before having the foundational understanding with the other person about personal boundaries-- which I take very seriously.

Given that, I'd say I agree that rape is a very real fear for women, but not as overblown as some might think. I believe that the danger for women is exponentially higher, not because they are the 'weaker' sex or that men are simply more prone to such behavior, but that (as you pointed out) Western society is still only barely out of the phase (historically) where the male-dominated perspective was the prevailing form of social interaction. It's an unfortunate thing to say, but I think it's very true and very reflective of societal reaction to sexual misbehavior.

I think this plays a very large role in things that would even seem counter-intuitive to this phase in history-- like how male sexual offenders tend to get stiffer sentencing in courts, especially when it involves male teachers instead of female teachers. There still exists this social idea that female victims are the helpless victims, while the male victims are either in questionable positions to begin with (for male-male rapes) or should be praised for "gettin' some" to begin with. It's a blatant double-standard that is observable in the types of sentencing, but it's not a double-standard in the way that some in the anti-feminist camp might sometimes express. Instead, it's a double-standard that displays how there are still remnants to rewarding sexual "accomplishment" by men and not rewarding it (or sometimes even punishing it) with women. The most common form of incredulous response to a female being raped by a male is questioning whether it's a case of 'buyers remorse' after the fact. The most common form of incredulous response to a male being raped is promoting the myth about erections being completely voluntary when the rapist is a female or, in cases of males raping males, often a case of "they deserved it" (usually having to do with prison rapes).

On the other hand, I don't think the specter of being falsely accused is too heavily overblown, either. Now, granted, I think that in some sectors it's incredibly overblown-- pointing out the ridiculousness of personalities like Nancy Grace during the Duke Lacrosse investigation is a perfect example of an unrepresentative case of false accusation that some athletic enthusiasts have gotten a bit too sensitive about-- but in other, more moderate environments it's not as overblown as you might think. I'm a 34-year-old male who works in a business almost completely dominated by females and a number of the other males present are homosexual (I'm head of IT at an architectural/interior design firm), and I most definitely have to be mindful of how I comport myself because I don't want to give the wrong impression. The reason I've continually had the personal rule of not being physically intimate with anyone who works at the same company I work at is simple: not only does it avoid the possibility of relationship-type awkwardness, I'm also keeping myself out of instances that could result in mixed signals or confusing behaviors that would or could lead to false accusations of sexual harassment or assault. I do this because I know of at least two cases where someone's employment was ended due to allegations, and I know for sure that one of those cases were made up of false claims of harassment or rape. As far as I'm concerned: why play with that kind of risk if I can instead make a choice to be in more control of the situation? With the number of things and situations in life that can't be controlled, this was a no-brainer for me. Based on my own personal experience and experiences related to me from others, instances of false accusations based on workplaces have been fairly high in ratio, so in that type of environment I think at least nominal concern is worthwhile, to say the least.

Overall, though, I don't think that any adjustment of behavior on my part is in any way something (for me) to be angry over. I acknowledge that women have historically been at a societal disadvantage, and even though that's changing I don't think everything is always equal. I see no problem accommodating in this case, because it's very real that women are raped in disgustingly awful numbers-- any rape is horrible, but a 20%-25% rate of being victimized is deplorable in any society-- and it's not fair or equal. So no anger from me over the issue since I don't really disagree with you, or in places where it seems I do it's not to a very large degree (if at all).

 

[PhantomWolf]

First off I am going to say that I can't say I understand where you are coming from Fiona, I certainly can respect it and acknowledge your position, but since I have never been through it I can't truly understand, and thus with my limited understanding I have to try and hold up my end of the discussion as someone who is doing their best to understand what you've been through and where you are, but obviously can't entirely. I also think you are very brave to open up on this topic in a public forum and so you have huge respect from me and I'm certainly not trying to say anything that you find upsetting or offensive.

I think that people tend to be disbelieved when it comes to these topics. Phantomwolf. That is why I posted the attrition figures for rape allegations. I understand that men feel that they are the less believed but the evidence does not bear that out. This is part of what I am trying to discuss: it is the same kind of myth, IMO.

I certainly believe that until recently disbelief was certainly a major issue for everyone. Some of the cases in the past have been utterly disgusting in the way the victims were treated, and really until very recently have these things started to be treated in a serious manner. I have to disagree with you though. When it comes to rape and being believed that it happened, women might still be having troubles, but they are far more likely to be believed than a man. When a woman is raped there is generally a lot of evidence that we now know about, the types of injuries for instance can indicate the difference between forced and consensual. There is also DNA and other things, and most western Police Depts these days will try and err on the side of accepting the complaint unless there is good evidence to reject it as false. When it comes to men being raped, unless it is sodomy, there is not injury, rarely DNA evidence, in fact really no evidence if any physical trauma. A guy turning up and laying a complaint is generally seen as a joke, weak, or gay, and the idea pretty much dismissed. This is the attitude that women were facing 20 years ago and have fought so hard to get recognition, but instead of being willing to stand up and help men now fight, there seems to be a hostility from those that forged the way as if recognising that women can be predators as well is a terrible thing. I'm not saying that it needs to be say that women are equally dangerous as rapists, but merely a recognition that yes women do rape and their male victims should be treated equally to female victims of males.

I don't think that is a new thing, though. Again this is part of what I am trying to say. This is what women have been taught forever. What I do think is different is that this now out there for discussion. The woman's voice is being heard as strongly as the man's. So you are hearing this myth, and it is just as uncomfortable as the other one of the duplicitous lying female.

The problem isn't that other voices are being heard, it's whether or not the message those voices is right. I don't think that the voice that yells "All women are duplicitous liars" is any more correct than the one screaming "All men are potential Rapists" both of those voices are doing nothing but creating FUD and that is bad for society all around. It's time that instead of male's voices, or female's voices being heard of each other, busy accusing the other of everything under the sun, that the loudest voice being heard is the voice of reason. Until both sides stop pointing fingers and accusing the other of such divisive things then that isn't going to happen and in the end it's the victims that suffer. Not only that but everyone else does too because as you say women start to treat all men as a treat, and men start to treat every woman as a potential accuser. In the middle the victims of both sexes fall through the cracks.

I do not think it is just as harmful, because I do not think that it leads men to change their behaviour, in general. It is just as harmful for anyone who is a victim of female aggression and predation: but it is not something with wider impact in the same way

Well really it depends on how you measure harm. I'm not sure that having people change their behaviour to keep themselves safe is actually harmful, however the mental anguish and emotional issues of victims certainly is sign of harm. I sort of feel that the real harm done to men that get raped (be it by force or merely blackmail) outweighs the worry that something might happen because the myth that "All men are rapists" has been feed to women till they are scared to be alone on a street sidewalk with a man in the same block, just as I feel the real harm done to women that get raped outweighs the worry of men that if they're alone with a women they'll be accused of being a rapist.

Phantomwolf, that is not a difference between the genders: it is a similarity. Women are not deterred by the idea it cannot happen, that is true: they are disbelieved and humiliated on a different rationale. And that also does profound damage. We need to recognise the myths at work and counter them wherever they arise. Polarising this does not help

I'm certainly not trying to polarize, merely point out that there are men in the same position as women victims, but that they aren't getting the same help. Today the police tend to be a lot better when women come forward with rape allegations and unless there is some pretty obvious discrepancy in their story it is accepted as true until there is other evidence to prove otherwise. Men don't get that benefit of the doubt; in fact they first have to get past the embarrassment of admitting it happened. I can realise that women have issues with reporting it, belief that it was their own fault etc, but when they do get through that and take a step, they will generally get help, not humiliation and disbelief, men do get humiliation and disbelief. In one of the other threads the story of "Mike" was brought up. In the article that first revealed his rape, the attitude of the comments really was pretty terrible. They were saying things like "He wasn't raped because a female can't rape a male", that "It wasn't rape because the threat wasn't physical" (she threatened to have him charged with rape if he tried to stop her), "That he was lucky to get a free lay and shouldn't be complaining", that "He put himself in that position so it was his own fault" and so on. Can you imagine that outcry that would occur if those things were said today about a female who was raped? That's where we were 20 years ago when judges were saying that "the victim dressed sexy thus she wanted it and so it wasn't really the guys fault." It's exactly the same sort of discrimination and ignorance that women have had to fight through to get to where they are today, but instead of those same women now being willing to help male victims in the same position, they are just as likely to step on them and kick them while they are down. This is wrong.

Perhaps. I doubt it but I would like to hear from other men on the subject. Are you suggesting that if the true incidence were known men would have reason to be as frightened as women? That they should be? Do other men see it like this?

I don't know if they would be frightened, but certainly I think they would be more wary of getting themselves into a situation where it could happen. The issue isn't so much should they be frightened of women, I don't want that, all it does it further spread the FUD already out there, but rather should we cover up the issue to the point where those female predators who are out there, whatever their numbers, have a free run to do whatever they please because there is a refusal to recognise their crime for what it is. Should we hide the truth from people and put them at risk, even if that risk is lower than the risk of women being the victim?

Yes perhaps: how is that different from "she was asking for it". Or " she consented then lied"?

Neither of which would get you very far in a police station these days.

Again this is a problem within the conception of rape, at least to some extent. I do agree that one of the myths which is around is that men are indiscriminate: it is often reinforced by men themselves: take a look at some of the flirting and banter around. Much of it is predicated on that idea and that is why I will not flirt. But most people enjoy that stuff and most know it is not true. I do think it informs our mindset at a less conscious level, but that is controversial and a topic for another thread. That myth is stronger in the normal run:but when it comes to responses to the rape victim I do not think there is that much difference.

Unfortunately our society demands that sort of thing from out men. If they haven't sleep with about 10 women by the time they are 20, they aren't real men. This attitude is another barrier to men revealing that they have been raped by a women because, heck they are expected to sleep with a woman that wants them, I mean come on, what are you turning down free sex, a pansy or something? Women don't have that same issue, they are expected to not sleep around so if they are forced it's the guy's fault since he's the sex maniac, but when the guys is forced, well there is something wrong with him for not wanting to do her. This is the difference. I know it's a sort of a double standard, but there it is. Socially guys are expected to sleep about and if they don't they're abnormal, girls are meant to be chaste and if they aren't they're seen as loose. This is another myth and attitude that affects the way female and male rape are treated differently.

I think people do fully realise that, at least in the case of male on male rape. I think we do not have enough evidence to show it is not appreciated in the case of female on male rape: but I certainly assume it is equally scarring for the individual.

I agree I think there is a lot of appreciation in the case of Male-Male rape, though I think that is because in many people's mind this is linked to Homosexuality and while we all might like to be PC if people are honest the first thing that generally comes to a straight person's mind of that is "ick!" (likely Homosexual people have the same thought about us straight people. ;p) Because in general to straight people the act of male on male is revolting, the act of male rape on another male is treated in the same way. However since the idea of a female being domineering and making you have it with her isn't, and in fact is a turn on for many guys (in their head anyway) they don't have the same reaction to it, in fact because they ignorantly think they'd like it, they think there is something wrong for someone else to be upset and emotionally devastated by it. The fact that the victim is then treated like there is something wrong with them just compounds the issue. Again, this is where women were 20 years ago.

That is simply not true. Rape crisis is available to anyone who is raped, and much of the evidence and publicity about male rape comes from those centres. I think what you are really saying is that you are inhibited by what you perceive as the expectations upon you: and that is just as true for women. One of the reasons women do not report rape and sexual assault is their perception that they are responsible because they stepped outside of those expectations in some aspect of their behaviour. Again a similarity, not a difference

I'm going to suggest that this likely differs from centre to centre. I have heard a number of stories where men have been abused (admittedly mostly DV rather than rape) where when they have turned for help from centres that are mostly female dominated they have received abuse and threats and were told to stop making up stuff or they'd be reported to the police for harassment, not exactly the sort of thing to help them overcome the trauma they are already going through.

That is recognised I think. What is not recognised is that men are as often victims, and that is because that is not true.

I'm not suggesting that it should be recognised that men can be equally victims of rape (DV there certainly are some newer studies starting to say that it is often the female doing it, but since we're mostly talking rape here) but the problem is that in a lot of situations it's not being recognised at all. The most common form of Female rape seems to be the power play where a woman with power over a minor (such as a teacher) starts a relationship with a student. These relationships can be known about and allowed to go on for years before being stopped. If it was a male teacher and a female student how long would it be let go? Add to that, that the evidence is a lot harder to prove, and social expectations completely different, and really such things are rarely recognised for what they are. Heck it took till only a few years back for NZ law to even recognise in law that a male could be raped, and we are one of the countries well ahead of the game. When you get people out there that claim that there has to be penetration of the victim for it to be rape so a female using a male, rather then sticking things into him, isn't rape then it shows that men are still so far behind in the recognition factor that we've hardly even got off the starting line.

I think you do not understand how loaded this has been historically: nor how recently the woman's perspective has been part of informing the debate and framing the law.

I do realise this, 20 years ago rape was almost considered to be a non-event legally, if it happen, well it was the victim's fault. The problem isn't that this has changed, the problem is that it has only changed for women. This is where I have the issue. Over the past 20 years we've made leaps and bounds to get things right, but in the middle of women demanding better protection and treatment, the male victims have been left behind, and now that we're more aware of the crime, thanks to those brave women that made a stand, we're finding that women aren't the only victims, but rather then dragging those male victims up to the same level of protection as they have, it seems some of the women's right movement would rather see them swept under the carpet and ignored because they think that acknowledging the problem and giving those victims equal protection will somehow diminish the protection for women.

I am afraid that I have to say that my belief is that arguing that this is an equal problem - that women are as violent as men or as likely to sexually assault them does actually have the effect of minimising the abuse of women: because to do it you have to equate very different things. I know that skeptigirl's insistence on this in the other thread has been buried in other issues: but this remains an important thing. I repeat: the victim of abuse is worthy of the same help and support no matter what gender they are: and the difficulties of dealing with it are pretty much the same.( I will add the caveat that, since it is a bigger problem for women, and so many women are now brave enough and articulate enough to talk about it, it is probably a little easier for them than it used to be: if men do suffer abuse as much, then they must take those same brave steps: but few have. I think this is because it is a smaller pool but whatever the reason "brothers have to do it for themselves", because only brothers can tell us how it really is). Me-too-ism is not neutral Phantomwolf. Can you understand that?

I honestly think we are arguing the same point here, I'm not saying that we should all be treating the threat as equal between sexes in a Me-too fashion, the threat as far as we can tell isn't the same (again in DV there is a case that it certainly could be, but in rape the signs are that it's not though for obvious reasons we don't know how common it really is because it is rarely ever reported even when it does occur) but rather what I am saying is that a) Victims should be treated with equal respect and treatment, that a rape victim is a rapes victim is a rape victim, that it doesn't matter if they are female or male, or if their attackers was female or male, they are deserving of the same rights, the same help and the same justice. And b) that we need to actually stop hiding from the fact that women can be abusers, that while recognising that it is less likely to happen, still recognise that it CAN happen, and start to teach guys how to spot it and avoid it, and also tell them to not be ashamed if it happens, that there is nothing wrong with them and that they'll have the support they need to come forward just as we are teaching women these things and giving them the support they need to come forward.

 

[Baby Nemesis]

unlike women who now have the support stuctures to help them cope, men have nothing

Not the case. It's just that the support isn't so well-known, and may be not so widespread. But it's there. See, for example:

Men As Survivors Helpline - MASH
Understanding male childhood sexual abuse and rape - another support service
For partners and supporters of male [rape] survivors
male rape

From that website:

Most rape crisis groups are women-only spaces but they still give information to male victims, partners, friends and families.

Today the police tend to be a lot better when women come forward with rape allegations and unless there is some pretty obvious discrepancy in their story
it is accepted as true until there is other evidence to prove otherwise.

That's certainly not true all over the place - there are still gross injustices on both sides, with some women who've been even badly injured being refused justice, and in other cases some falsely accused men being convicted on very flimsy grounds.

 

[Fiona]

Fiona,

As has been stated, there probably are cases where a man wouldn't take a woman home because of fear of rape, but in such cases (where a man wouldn't take a woman home) the men more likely are concerned about instances where they would be accused of something they didn't do. I can state with certainty my own behavior, which in the past involved me not willing to take home a stranger because I didn't want to invite a scenario where any mixed signals would be had or given, and instead meant I would either get to know someone better or the intent and desires from each of us would be laid out pretty honestly before we stepped into a private setting together. In cases where we hadn't expressly given our mutual intents, my default behavior would be to assume that nothing more was going to happen than what was invited or made clear as things progressed. I know the description is a little bit vague, but it basically involved a mostly heuristic interaction level where as little room was left for question as possible throughout the encounter. I'm with someone now, so a lot of it looks in hindsight like I may have been a bit overly timid in some situations, but better that than to be overly aggressive before having the foundational understanding with the other person about personal boundaries-- which I take very seriously.

I think that is the position of most people, and it is certainly what I assumed. I mentioned that I sometimes had the "ground rules" conversation. And so, it seems, did you. Sometimes neither of us did and we relied on a more non-verbal process. That is easier, in fact, because making intentions explicit is a rather awkward thing to do at times. And if we are honest and reasonable people we can get by with your "heuristic interaction level" quite satisfactorily. We are quite good at this, most of the time. The only problem with that is when it goes wrong (either through misread signals or through wifull blindness). Many men bewail the fact that women are not straightforward in their approach - they tell me that they want to go to a bar and have a woman who fancies them say so openly and in words. This seldom happens. It is perfectly true that in most instances a man must take the first open risk; and this is perhaps not fair. But honest blokes do so only after a great deal of non-explicit interplay and I believe that they usually do so only after they are fairly sure they have had a "yes" already. That is slightly tangential but it is relevant because it is another area where actual behaviour does not reflect the ideology of equality: and it does not because our assumptions and our social rules do not change as fast as our philosophy. That is not to say we are hypocrites: just that history is heavy. A man who makes a move and is wrong may feel a bit silly but he is not heavily criticised for it: it is not quite the same for a woman and the risk is greater. And in saying that I do not mean to dismiss the social discomfort for either sex: but one is within expected roles and the other is not: and that makes a difference whether it should or not.

Given that, I'd say I agree that rape is a very real fear for women, but not as overblown as some might think. I believe that the danger for women is exponentially higher, not because they are the 'weaker' sex or that men are simply more prone to such behavior, but that (as you pointed out) Western society is still only barely out of the phase (historically) where the male-dominated perspective was the prevailing form of social interaction. It's an unfortunate thing to say, but I think it's very true and very reflective of societal reaction to sexual misbehavior.

Yes. I would differ from you only in this: I think we are not out of that historical phase: we are in transition and I do not want to undervalue the progress we have made: but the gains are not as big as you might think and they are far from secure. I think your next paragraph (which I have omitted) suggests we are in broad agreement about this

On the other hand, I don't think the specter of being falsely accused is too heavily overblown, either. Now, granted, I think that in some sectors it's incredibly overblown-- pointing out the ridiculousness of personalities like Nancy Grace during the Duke Lacrosse investigation is a perfect example of an unrepresentative case of false accusation that some athletic enthusiasts have gotten a bit too sensitive about-- but in other, more moderate environments it's not as overblown as you might think. I'm a 34-year-old male who works in a business almost completely dominated by females and a number of the other males present are homosexual (I'm head of IT at an architectural/interior design firm), and I most definitely have to be mindful of how I comport myself because I don't want to give the wrong impression. The reason I've continually had the personal rule of not being physically intimate with anyone who works at the same company I work at is simple: not only does it avoid the possibility of relationship-type awkwardness, I'm also keeping myself out of instances that could result in mixed signals or confusing behaviors that would or could lead to false accusations of sexual harassment or assault. I do this because I know of at least two cases where someone's employment was ended due to allegations, and I know for sure that one of those cases were made up of false claims of harassment or rape. As far as I'm concerned: why play with that kind of risk if I can instead make a choice to be in more control of the situation? With the number of things and situations in life that can't be controlled, this was a no-brainer for me. Based on my own personal experience and experiences related to me from others, instances of false accusations based on workplaces have been fairly high in ratio, so in that type of environment I think at least nominal concern is worthwhile, to say the least.

Overall, though, I don't think that any adjustment of behavior on my part is in any way something (for me) to be angry over. I acknowledge that women have historically been at a societal disadvantage, and even though that's changing I don't think everything is always equal. I see no problem accommodating in this case, because it's very real that women are raped in disgustingly awful numbers-- any rape is horrible, but a 20%-25% rate of being victimized is deplorable in any society-- and it's not fair or equal. So no anger from me over the issue since I don't really disagree with you, or in places where it seems I do it's not to a very large degree (if at all)

Again we are broadly agreed about what has to happen in the current climate: and it is regrettable. I have to say that I have never seen an instance of dismissal through such a false allegation: but if you say you know the facts, and it has happened in your environment then I fully accept that is true. It makes me think that relationships in the workplace are very different where you are; but that is very possible of course.

I take your modification of your behaviour as a very sensible response to keeping yourself safe; and it is akin to the kinds of precautions women take against rape and for similar reasons: you have a fear and you guard against it. As I said it is a sad thing this is necessary either way: but that is where we are at. What I do think is in play though, is that men did not have to take those precautions before because harassment in the work environment was accepted in full. I well remember a job I had while I was a student: in an office within a warehouse. It was mostly men who worked on the floor, and mostly women in the office. When we had to walk through the warehouse for any reason it was like entering a pit. We did it in a strict rota and we hated it. Some were able - they could give as good as they got and treat it as a joke and with bravado: but not everyone could. It is experiences such as those which make me hear men's current complaints with some lack of sympathy. If they have to be careful of their behaviour in the workplace they are now on a level playing field. I had hoped we could level up: it seems we have levelled down. That is sad. But what we have NOT done is tipped the scale in favour of women: though I do see how it can feel like that if men saw nothing wrong with what happened before.

 

[Lonewulf]

Thank you for sharing your story, Fiona. As I've said multiple times, I think that more information is better overall for these kinds of cases, to help spread awareness. I can see where you're coming from, and can honestly agree; I don't fear being raped by a woman (or a man, even, except in prison!) enough to modify my behavior in any meaningful way. But then... I don't modify my behavior much all around, even to prevent robbery and murder. I have developed some bad habits, although I have yet to pay for any of them (one of those bad habits includes walking out at night from time to time while alone and wearing dark clothing; not a good recipe). Still, I get what you're saying; rape for women is different, in myth and public perception (as well as statistics and probabilities) as rape of men.

I've never undergone rape myself. I don't know what it feels like, in any way. I have many friends, perhaps too many, that have undergone rape; one friend of mine didn't report his male-on-male rape, as in Texas (especially Corpus Christi; might as well call it Jesustown), that would pretty much be a court circus. Instead, he dispensed his own justice with a baseball bat a few weeks later, and told me "there's at least 3 kids that guy's not going to be able to make." He did, as he put it, the one thing that he felt he could possibly do; the law is useless, and what would be the point of reporting? To make it even worse... what if it was a woman that raped him, and not a man? That would be even more unbelievable.

The myths are VERY strong with men, as can be evidenced of any online conversation on the topic; and while the reality is very rare, when it does affect men, it affects them VERY strongly. There's nothing they can do, in their own perception. And unfortunately, society isn't exactly in a rush to prove them wrong.

There's still some prejudice against women that are raped. They still have to fear the fact that they might not be believed -- especially when there's no actual evidence in a single case, or no rape kit available (having to pay for your own rape kit in a certain political issue brought up can't help...), or when you wait until after all evidence is gone (showered away, as in your personal case, Fiona); none of which is the fault of the victim, as it's hard to make rational decisions when dealing with a very emotional and traumatizing experience. And there are still cases where they aren't believed; there's still prejudice out there that hurts them. But I honestly think that, more and more, rape against women is being viewed with open eyes. While rape against men is also coming more into the spotlight, it's just nowhere in comparison, and the fact that it's so rare hurts credibility even more so than not. Not to mention that it's difficult to show any real evidence of a rape against a man, unless it was through anal penetration (and even then, it might be argued that the man was probably gay anyways, or why else would he be in that situation...?)

Anyways, that's my own perception on the issue. As to your question "Can't we all just get along?" -- I'll have to say, realistically, probably not. Amongst the more rational and moderate, yes. Amongst the more emotional, possibly. For society as a whole, that will be an uphill struggle, but it's being made by many brave people. But the truth is, you can't get rid of some people. There are those that mock what they don't understand and refuse to learn, there are those that react violently based on their own personal perceptions that they refuse to change in the face of evidence and through personal prejudice, and there are, quite simply, those that have a political and personal axe to grind; and may not be willing to be honest while in the process of grinding. You can't get rid of these people, they exist in all walks of life. As long as there are close-minded people, there's always going to be a divide (although ideally, a very small one). And it doesn't help that they can't see most of the people that they drive away from participating in the conversation or spotlight purely because of their antics -- those that would aid in understanding.

Either way, hoping that there won't be those that make such conversations more difficult seems about just as possible, to me, of hoping that there won't be those that make any of the other conversations on the JREF forum or any controversial issue more difficult. It's a sad fact of life... one that I hope to better by attempting to better my own behavior, and to attempt to change my perception to fit with the facts. But that's all that I can really do...

The only person I have any guarantee of changing is myself, if I attempt to do so. I admit that it might be possible to convince other people, but there's never any kind of a guarantee there. Still, one does have to try, if they want the conversation to get anywhere -- and those that keep at it, well, to me, they're heroes.

 

[Francesca R]

I can accept that the "attrition rate" of male rape, by females may be higher than the attrition rate of female rape by males, which is itself very high indeed.

The scale of the social problem of rape, with respect to engendering fear (as it affects the typical woman and the typical man) is however overwhelmingly higher for the typical woman, and probably always will be.

I can't really tell if anyone disagrees with this. I don't think so.

Either way, I don't intend to support it with evidence, nor argue it. It is not true because I say so, but it's true.

 

[Lonewulf]

Well, I'd honestly be VERY surprised if men were raped more often by women than the other way around. I can honestly say that. I lean perhaps a little too much on the side of equality in many arguments, but in that case, there's so many variables that seem to point it to one direction than the other all around.

In the case of engendering fear, yes, I agree with you, Francesca. I also think that the case gets muddled every once in a while; I remember watching a short film of a feminist (I forget her name, I believe she's relatively famous) giving a speech about equality and how women are portrayed; she brought up how many times women are portrayed as killed or dominated by a man in one sense or another, and then brought up how a black woman was demonstrated as being "bestial" by having whiskers drawn on her and a tribal air around her. The argument was that by depicting women as "animals", it made men more likely to look down on them and treat them as if they were.

I couldn't buy that argument for a moment. It seemed to be confusing the issue and going way out of her way to spot problems. It seems a lot like arguing that wearing a fur coat means that men that find the women attractive are really looking to have sex with animals... it just really seemed to be reaching. And this kind of argument can crop up from time to time (although thankfully, not that often). I begin to wonder how such arguments might actually have an influence on the mindset of those that listen to them, though...

I once saw the argument that the only reason that men feel traumatized during a rape is because they "feel like a woman"; so thus, our "patriarchal society is to blame!" It seems to fall under the political axe to grind, as I said above; once you have a hammer, everything becomes a nail... once you have an enemy, everything negative becomes a result of them.

Of course, strange arguments will eventually be found for any position in a debate, and I'm perhaps misrepresenting extremist feminist-based arguments disproportionately; I state it as it comes to mind and as I see it. And of course, the majority of feminists aren't extremists and have very agreeable goals.

 

[Fiona]

First off I am going to say that I can't say I understand where you are coming from Fiona, I certainly can respect it and acknowledge your position, but since I have never been through it I can't truly understand, and thus with my limited understanding I have to try and hold up my end of the discussion as someone who is doing their best to understand what you've been through and where you are, but obviously can't entirely. I also think you are very brave to open up on this topic in a public forum and so you have huge respect from me and I'm certainly not trying to say anything that you find upsetting or offensive.

I trust you would not be in this thread if your last sentence was not true, Phantomwolf. It is true we cannot wholly understand another's experience: but I think we can listen and learn from each other and understand better than we do now. I appreciate you are trying to avoid an annoying cliche, but what I am hoping is that we will make the honest effort to hear what each is saying. It is not easy. I imagine I will always pay greater attention to some aspects because of the things I have been taught: as will you, to different aspects. The ability to truly see everyone as fully human and to give their perspective as much weight as our own is vanishingly rare: we call those who can do it "saints" and they are not 10 a penny. But we can try.

I certainly believe that until recently disbelief was certainly a major issue for everyone. Some of the cases in the past have been utterly disgusting in the way the victims were treated, and really until very recently have these things started to be treated in a serious manner. I have to disagree with you though. When it comes to rape and being believed that it happened, women might still be having troubles, but they are far more likely to be believed than a man.

I do not think this is true. If that is the case then how do you account for the attrition rates in rape cases? I gather you are in NZ? Gumboot has shown some indication of the climate there and what I take from what I read in his links is that you began the process of changing the law etc quite early: and you are now in the middle of a major backlash. That is to be expected; social progress is not smooth.

It seems to me that the attrition rates can only be explained by understanding that women are NOT believed. In this country the conviction rate is something above 5%. In the USA it is around 12%. (From memory, but those figures are not far wrong). I do not know what they are in NZ, but I assume you do. If you can account for the discrepancy between countries in another way I will be very interested to hear it. It is possible that Scottish women just lie at more than twice the rate of their American counterparts: but I do not think that is likely. It seems to me that one of the important factors is that the law here has not yet changed (though it is in process) and it has changed in other parts of the world.

That is the attrition rate for people who make a complaint: it takes no account of those who do not report rape. Those numbers are very difficult to come by, but the BCS does give some indication and that has been posted in both the poll thread and the attrition thread. I will not link it again here.

When a woman is raped there is generally a lot of evidence that we now know about, the types of injuries for instance can indicate the difference between forced and consensual. There is also DNA and other things, and most western Police Depts these days will try and err on the side of accepting the complaint unless there is good evidence to reject it as false. When it comes to men being raped, unless it is sodomy, there is not injury, rarely DNA evidence, in fact really no evidence if any physical trauma.

This is just not true. I suspect you have bought a lot of propaganda though it may be you just have not thought about the issue enough. You are, in fact, making my point.

Let me make a few remarks about what you say in the context of my OP.

You assert that when a woman is raped there is generally a lot of evidence that we now know about. You mention "the types of injuries". This merely reiterates the myth of the violent stranger rape: and as the evidence shows this is a very, very small proportion of perpetrated rape. Can you see that this sets an expectation which most women will not be able to meet? Can you see that the credibility of the woman with few or no injuries is therefore already suspect? Do you understand that this belief, held by both men and women because of our culture, prevents women coming forward if they did not resist in hopes of staying alive and without serious injury on top of the rape? This kind of thinking is part of the problem, Phantomwolf. It is a myth on top of a myth

You go on to say there is DNA. Well DNA certainly exists and in some ways it has made the position of the rape victim harder. Its absence is taken as an indication that no rape took place. I am not an idiot, Phantomwolf: I was not unaware of the advice to rape victims. Yet if you read my OP every move I made meant that any complaint I made would fail:

I took a man home - instant reason to doubt my account, because I stepped outside of role, and because what possible reason could I have for doing that if I did not want sex. Can you hear the police questioning? Can you hear the defence lawyer? I can

I offered no resistance - what self respecting woman would not make even a token attempt at physical resistance? you said it yourself - we are looking for injury. After all it is a fate worse than death, isn't it? Well not to me, actually, but what do I know?

I destroyed the evidence - it is a well known principle of law that the one who destroys the evidence is more likely to be lying is it not? But knowing that I went and showered. For a long time. And I was not thinking about how that would be seen at all: though I know how important it is if a case is to be brought. The advice about this is there because this is what a lot of women do. And I do not think I could have done anything else. I am even more suspect: I washed the bedding too because it stank of him. Obviously no honest woman would do that, and so the defence would say if it ever got to court. But it wouldn't. That is what attrition is all about

I did not report it at once. I did not report it at all, as it happens, but if I had it would not have been immediate. It took me a long time to process this event and to come to a place where I was sure I had not been at fault. And that is not so unusual either. What DH Lawrence called "the voices of my education" were very loud, and they drowned out my reason for a time.

You assert that police departments will go out of their way to accept a complaint unless there is good evidence it is false. Go and read the attrition thread again. In many jurisdictions that is what is supposed to happen: in the real world we have made progress: for example the complainant is no longer required to take a lie detector test (yes those tests that don't work were standard in many jurisdictions for complaints of sexual assault: but curiously not for burglary - no idea why. Well I do actually): but when you have senior police officers telling the press that 50-80% of complaints are false then I am afraid I do not believe that the rules about what should happen are a reflection of the real practice. And the evidence bears this out. The police are people. They are subject to the same myths as all the rest of us: training helps but we have a very very long way to go. You talk as if it has all changed on the ground: it has not.

A guy turning up and laying a complaint is generally seen as a joke, weak, or gay, and the idea pretty much dismissed.

The rules for police response are identical. Why do you believe they are not followed when the complainant is a man, yet are followed when she is a woman? Do you have evidence for this? It is a curious belief on the face of it.

This is the attitude that women were facing 20 years ago and have fought so hard to get recognition,

It is the attitude women face now. I refer you again to the attrition figures

but instead of being willing to stand up and help men now fight,

I am going to say something which will probably confirm all your suppositions now, and I am sorry for it but I know no other way to respond: that would be a perfectly reasonable expectation if: 1. Women had won their own fight and 2. Men had articulated what they see as the problem and had provided the evidence as women did and do.

If men get themselves organised and direct their complaints to the right quarters- the law and the culture- then I, for one, will support their struggle because then "they" will be "us". . But it is hardly reasonable to expect women to fight men's battles for them when they will not take the first step; and when so much of what they complain of is directed at taking away new and hard fought rights from women. For that is what is happening. Can you see that? I do not direct this at you personally: you have stuck to a call for the rights of male victims to be recognised and that is fair. But men did not initiate the fight for a change in women's position and they were in a good position to do that, having greater representation in the law and in government. Once women started it many men did help and I do not take that away: but they did not do it for us and nor should they have, necessarily.

I notice that you focus solely on female on male rape here too: you acknowledge that most male rape is by other men: that in those cases the kinds of evidence (injury and dna) you lean on so heavily is just as available: yet you do not make a start with that: instead you focus on the far rarer situation. Have you asked yourself why that is? It is important and I have acknowledged that: but nobody here is arguing it is very common (well actually you might be: not sure). Why this focus?

there seems to be a hostility from those that forged the way as if recognising that women can be predators as well is a terrible thing. I'm not saying that it needs to be say that women are equally dangerous as rapists, but merely a recognition that yes women do rape and their male victims should be treated equally to female victims of males.

I have already agreed to all of this. But again I say, it seems to be quite rare. I do not resist the notion that women can be predatory: but they are not so in huge numbers, at least insofar as male rape is concerned. You cannot honestly expect women to divert attention from their own ongoing and big concerns to address the needs of a small number of men until their own struggle is much further forward. Is that hard to understand?

The problem isn't that other voices are being heard, it's whether or not the message those voices is right. I don't think that the voice that yells "All women are duplicitous liars" is any more correct than the one screaming "All men are potential Rapists" both of those voices are doing nothing but creating FUD and that is bad for society all around.

Again the point of this thread. Let me unpick a bit.

"all women are duplicitous liars" is a thread which runs through our culture. It is deep and it is simplistic. It is part of the unexamined narrative, because it goes in before we are conscious. And it has enough truth to allow it to persist. Like all powerless groups women have had to be economical with the truth in the past: without money or freedom they are still people. That means they have wants and desires they will try to meet: and consequences they will try to avoid. Powerless groups do not tell truth to power if the punishment for doing so is severe: that is true of all people. And so there is some justification for this charge, historically.

And now I will get jumped on by some, because that will be enough to make some of our more simplistic thinkers fall back on stereotype and breathe a sigh of relief. I have no wish to deny facts which do not help my case and I think that is always a mistake: but I see this as a feature of people: not of women. The charge of dishonesty is always levelled at the poor and powerless: so the english said it of the irish; and the americans said it of native americans; slave owners said it of slaves: and they were all correct for the same reasons.

But it is a stereotype to tie it to people rather than circumstances, if you see the distinction: and the fact that lie detectors were used in rape complaints: that judges were required by law to warn juries that women often lie in these cases: and all the other stereotypically based "safeguards" which have served to disadvantage women is in no way justified. And we both know that

"all men are potential rapists" is a different thing. It is also a thread which runs through our culture though not as widespread as the other. It is manifest in all the unspoken and unconscious precautions I have mentioned before: but unlike the "women as liars" it was not stated explicitly in mainstream culture until the feminist movement brought it out. It was implicit in the way women were raised and it was an underlying assumption in the whole hydraulic theory of male sexuality: but you did not get the insult in your face till relatively recently. When feminists made that statement we were talking to each other. And the way we understood it was this: in our lives we had to act as if it were true because there are a lot of rapists and we do not know who they are, That is what underpins the precautions we take. It is not saying that every man will rape given opportunity but that some will: and they exist in high enough numbers to restrain our freedom. That is not what men heard, however, so far as I can tell. And since they are not so used to being insulted it obviously hurts.

I cannot address the rest now for I must go to work. I hope that others will continue this conversation and I wish to state again: I am trying to improve our understanding: not to bash anyone. So if this has appeared combative then I am sorry: my intent is to explore the points you have raised and to show where we disagree.

 

[Lonewulf]

You assert that when a woman is raped there is generally a lot of evidence that we now know about. You mention "the types of injuries". This merely reiterates the myth of the violent stranger rape: and as the evidence shows this is a very, very small proportion of perpetrated rape. Can you see that this sets an expectation which most women will not be able to meet? Can you see that the credibility of the woman with few or no injuries is therefore already suspect? Do you understand that this belief, held by both men and women because of our culture, prevents women coming forward if they did not resist in hopes of staying alive and without serious injury on top of the rape? This kind of thinking is part of the problem, Phantomwolf. It is a myth on top of a myth

You go on to say there is DNA. Well DNA certainly exists and in some ways it has made the position of the rape victim harder. Its absence is taken as an indication that no rape took place. I am not an idiot, Phantomwolf: I was not unaware of the advice to rape victims. Yet if you read my OP every move I made meant that any complaint I made would fail:

I took a man home - instant reason to doubt my account, because I stepped outside of role, and because what possible reason could I have for doing that if I did not want sex. Can you hear the police questioning? Can you hear the defence lawyer? I can

I offered no resistance - what self respecting woman would not make even a token attempt at physical resistance? you said it yourself - we are looking for injury. After all it is a fate worse than death, isn't it? Well not to me, actually, but what do I know?

I destroyed the evidence - it is a well known principle of law that the one who destroys the evidence is more likely to be lying is it not? But knowing that I went and showered. For a long time. And I was not thinking about how that would be seen at all: though I know how important it is if a case is to be brought. The advice about this is there because this is what a lot of women do. And I do not think I could have done anything else. I am even more suspect: I washed the bedding too because it stank of him. Obviously no honest woman would do that, and so the defence would say if it ever got to court. But it wouldn't. That is what attrition is all about

I did not report it at once. I did not report it at all, as it happens, but if I had it would not have been immediate. It took me a long time to process this event and to come to a place where I was sure I had not been at fault. And that is not so unusual either. What DH Lawrence called "the voices of my education" were very loud, and they drowned out my reason for a time.

You assert that police departments will go out of their way to accept a complaint unless there is good evidence it is false. Go and read the attrition thread again. In many jurisdictions that is what is supposed to happen: in the real world we have made progress: for example the complainant is no longer required to take a lie detector test (yes those tests that don't work were standard in many jurisdictions for complaints of sexual assault: but curiously not for burglary - no idea why. Well I do actually): but when you have senior police officers telling the press that 50-80% of complaints are false then I am afraid I do not believe that the rules about what should happen are a reflection of the real practice. And the evidence bears this out. The police are people. They are subject to the same myths as all the rest of us: training helps but we have a very very long way to go. You talk as if it has all changed on the ground: it has not.

I can honestly say that I didn't read all of your post, Fiona, but this section of your post has made me think a bit. I can easily see why a woman would take a shower after being raped, and even clean the bed sheets. I can easily see why the majority would do so. Yet in a court of law, that does become circumspect; if a man did it if he were claimed of being raped by a woman, that would be VERY circumspect.

So yeah, it's obvious that we have a long way to go to help female victims of sexual assault.

The rules for police response are identical. Why do you believe they are not followed when the complainant is a man, yet are followed when she is a woman? Do you have evidence for this? It is a curious belief on the face of it.

Well, if I searched through Skeptigirl's posts in the sexual assault thread, there's one time where she denigrates the chance of a woman of pinning a man down without him fighting her off, and brought up issues of physical strength. I think this demonstrates an innate sense of physical inequality, pounded in us to the point where we accept it, without realizing that it relies on a question of averages. To add on to it, there's the myth you've mentioned yourself about how it's made out to be that most rapes are physically violent; who's likely to be the perpetrator of a "violent" rape, the weak woman or the strong man?

There's also a sense of "desire" -- women have, for a very long time, been made into a "pure" being, incapable of wrongdoing, especially sexually. For instance, the Damsel, who pretty much never existed, is featured in many medieval tales. It's a myth that's been going on for a while now. This myth existed in the medieval era, continued to exist well into the 1800s (only women were also expected to lord over house slaves... interesting mixture), and continues to exist in smaller proportions.

Add the two together, and I think you'll see why one claim tends to be taken as true over the other, depending on the gender of those raped and those raping. Of course, a man raping a man is easier to understand, because of the mythologies hanging around homosexuals, and the fact that men aren't supposed to be "pure". Still, I wouldn't trust such a case to go over well in a Texas court, especially the one in Corpus Christi.

 

[Francesca R]

It seems to me that one of the important factors is that the law here has not yet changed (though it is in process) and it has changed in other parts of the world.

A highly informative book I read not long ago about British justice and women is Eve was Framed by (Baroness) Helena Kennedy. It goes into great detail with case support about how and why the law (and general practice of the law) has not changed very much. I must admit that I read it with some "feminist caution"--that is--highly sensitive to how each page of it might be interpreted as an unreasonable emotive feminist "rant", and in that regard it impressed me greatly. I met Ms Kennedy in person last year when she came to speak at an event that the women's network of my employer staged (men were invited too; they were probably there in equal numbers, and the firm is about 32% women) and I tend to think she is a paragon of sense and reason, not to mention an expert on the matter at hand.

I know this isn't a book thread but I highly recommend it. I think it was written about 15 years back but she has updated and revised it in the last couple of years.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

With respect to the high attrition rate: What fraction of people accused of rape should be convicted?

When it's one person's word against another, any legal system which operates on the assumption of innocent until proven guilty is not going to find many people guilty. Should we make a special exception for those accused of rape?

 

[Francesca R]

With respect to the high attrition rate: What fraction of people accused of rape should be convicted?

When it's one person's word against another, any legal system which operates on the assumption of innocent until proven guilty is not going to find many people guilty. Should we make a special exception for those accused of rape?

Should we make an exception to innocent until proven guilty? Assuredly not. Should the legal and judicial procedure for rape cases be at all different from other crimes? Yes absolutely. Is it already different in view of this? Yes to some extent. Is there more than can and should be done? I think so.

What's the goal? Maximum justice, right? But also minimal intrusion on civil liberties. That's what i think frames the matter.

 

[Professor Yaffle]

With respect to the high attrition rate: What fraction of people accused of rape should be convicted?

When it's one person's word against another, any legal system which operates on the assumption of innocent until proven guilty is not going to find many people guilty. Should we make a special exception for those accused of rape?

No, but we should work harder at removing the prejudice and myths surrounding rape (in the minds to police, judges, jurors etc) that make even more barriers against a rape conviction.

 

[Ivor the Engineer]

No, but we should work harder at removing the prejudice and myths surrounding rape (in the minds to police, judges, jurors etc) that make even more barriers against a rape conviction.

Person A: "B raped me."

Person B: "A consented to sex."

There are no unusual physical injuries (e.g. knife marks or heavy bruising) on person A, and the type of sex involved in the rape is consistent with person A's historical sexual preferences.

How can person B ever be convicted?

Even if all the myths were countered there would still be reasonable doubt in any individual case of this type.