The Feminist Version of Rape (Cathryn Crawford)

The Washington Dispatch ^ | August 15, 2003 | Cathryn Crawford

[unixfox]

And women want to know why men aren't pursuing them anymore. They have made their beds, they can sleep in them. ALONE !

[jlogajan]

I wouldn't write it if I hadn't verified my statements.

"These women did not feel violated, and the counselors and interviewers have to convince them that they have, indeed, been raped."

When did you hold interviews or read independent interviews with these women to find out that they initially did not feel violated?

From what I'm reading, it sounds like merely a conclusion you jumped to because it fit your thesis. I'm not saying your conclusion is right or wrong. Just that you don't have the cites to back it up.

It is too easy to pass off speculation as fact. If you are obviously doing so, the credibility of the rest of your work suffers. Is she telling me facts, or is she just generating BS?

[tophat9000]

Ditto for diamond rings.

Yea but if it turns out to be a zircon...is it rape?

[wbill]

Looks like WAR is a worldwide organization. I'm terrified. Thought that it was just a bunch of local campus radicals.

I just mentioned "Women Against Rape" to one of my coworkers. She said "Who isn't against it?". Good Point.

[jlogajan]

If you become intoxicated or influenced by narcotics of any type, only you are responsible for what occurs.

So if someone sees a drunk lying on the sidewalk, they can shoot him/her in the head -- and get away with it?

[RonF]

Let's not forget the asterisk that if you are someday elected President, any past activities are pardoned.

True; such as alcohol and cocaine abuse, for example.

[Cathryn Crawford]

It all boils down to consent. If the women in question desired restraint, or surprise, or even desired to resist because it was a turn-on for her, it cannot be rape. She is desiring and consenting to it.

As for you being raped, I'm assuming you're a man, and there is always that anatomical hurdle to get over.

If you become intoxicated or influenced by narcotics of any type, only you are responsible for what occurs.

Under the law, a woman that is "asleep" or "unconscious" is unable to give consent, and therefore sex would fall under the umbrella of rape.

This is an important aspect of the law when you begin thinking about GHB - the date rape drug - and it being administered to an unknowing woman.

[Cathryn Crawford]

Yea but if it turns out to be a zircon...is it rape?

Nah, he's just in serious trouble. :-)

[yarddog]

As near as I can tell, their definition is all sex in which males are involved.

[Post Toasties]

There often seems to be a lot of collateral damage to the accused's life and career, even if ultimately exonerated. Perhaps legal avenues of support to expedite ways for these individuals to help put their lives back together might be a good idea,since the 'system' would have been instrumental in disrupting them in the first place.

[Cathryn Crawford]

First of all, I'm a twenty year old girl, attending a university. That gives me a certian amount of one-on-one experience with the sort of trains of thought that I and my friends are confronted with everyday.

As for whether or not they felt violated, I did a considerable amount of research, read numerous interviews, and discussed the topic with several people over the course of time - including a friend of mine who told me about her experience with the university "sexual health counselor" after a "date rape" experience.

My article is not speculation. It's based on research, fact, and experience.

[Utilizer]

It is already illegal to shoot someone in the head unprovoked. Asleep on a park bench is irrelevant.
A more correct scenario would be: if you are inebriated and decide to push your way through the centre of a street gang: while I would agree that the resulting actions on their part might take a turn for the worse, I would place the blame squarely on you for the results. No sympathy here.

[Dan from Michigan]

I did a quick search on WAR after seeing your post and found this rather...interesting list

What if the persuer was Janet Reno, would that change things according to them.....

[jlogajan]

It is already illegal to shoot someone in the head unprovoked. Asleep on a park bench is irrelevant. A more correct scenario would be: if you are inebriated and decide to push your way through the centre of a street gang: while I would agree that the resulting actions on their part might take a turn for the worse, I would place the blame squarely on you for the results. No sympathy here.

Oh, okay. You can't shoot a drunk to death, but you can beat him to death. Got it.

[Cathryn Crawford]

What if the persuer was Janet Reno, would that change things according to them.....,

Don't scare me like that, Dan. :-)

[Utilizer]

It all boils down to consent. If the women in question desired restraint, or surprise, or even desired to resist because it was a turn-on for her, it cannot be rape. She is desiring and consenting to it.

And then later on, if she decided to tell the authorities about a 'forced' encounter? Then she claims it was not consential, I claim it was -but admit that a 'restrained' encounter did take place... I would say that this definition is unhelpful in such an instance.

As for you being raped, I'm assuming you're a man, and there is always that anatomical hurdle to get over.

Well, sleepily protesting the entire time without effect did not seem to improve matters, so I would not count too heavily on that 'anatomical hurdle' you refer to.

[Scenic Sounds]

Well, you've raised some great issues because of the ambiguous fact patterns involved.

If I get so drunk that I black out and do not remember things, and My girlfriend does as well, and then the next morning find out that we ummm... 'had an encounter', which one of us is 'guilty' of rape? From what she told Me, we were both more than half asleep, and things just progressed, er, 'naturally'. Mind you, I did not remember it until the next day when she made mention of it, so I am somewhat confused.

Did you notice that the fact pattern changed here? Initially, you suggested that you both "blacked out" (i.e., that neither of you had any memories of the events) and then later you suggested that both of you recovered your memories of the events (which suggests that you both were at least conscious enough to participate) and that your conduct had progressed "naturally," (which suggests that they were as consensual as drunks can get).

Your second hypothetical:

I became so inebriated that I lost consciousness, and wound up either on someone's bed or with someone in bed with Me that when I was totally sober would never DREAM of having intercourse with them, but it happened. Do you think I could claim 'rape'? Would you not imagine instead that I might be laughed out of court if I tried to pursue it?

The common law crime of rape is a crime against a woman. A woman could be convicted of rape, but only by participating in the rape of another woman.

Your third hypothetical:

Next we come to the definition of 'forced', or what exactly it means to be 'taken advantage of'. I have had occasion to encounter members of the opposite sex that preferred things done a certain way (who doesn't, eh?), and sometimes that rather stretched the boundaries of your definitions to date. Some preferred, ummm... a bit of 'restraint' (no, not bondage) being placed on them, some preferred MORE restraint, and some preferred... the element of surprise. Did a crime take place on those encounters, even if they were the preferred method? And if it did not, could not charges still be brought up later if your definitions are taken wholly at face value?

The way to handle these situations is to discuss and consent to them in advance. Then there's no problem. ;-)

[Scenic Sounds]

There often seems to be a lot of collateral damage to the accused's life and career, even if ultimately exonerated. Perhaps legal avenues of support to expedite ways for these individuals to help put their lives back together might be a good idea, since the 'system' would have been instrumental in disrupting them in the first place.

There's some good ideas!!

[.cnI redruM]

Wow! Does that work?

I should try it more often....

[Cathryn Crawford]

And then later on, if she decided to tell the authorities about a 'forced' encounter?

Then it boils down to the evidence, as in every rape case.

Well, sleepily protesting the entire time without effect did not seem to improve matters, so I would not count too heavily on that 'anatomical hurdle' you refer to.

I don't think that's rape.