War On Drugs

That was not the only time. While anecdotal, every single encounter I have had with girls claiming "date rape" have not been rapes at all. That was just one of the most gut churning encounters.People that have been actually raped don't need separate categories for what kind of rape or assault they underwent. Date rape was (IMO) invented by people wanting to add more victimization categories for people to fit into, and not to point out that people can be raped by those they know.After all many murders are commited by close acquaintences as well, yet we don't talk about "date murder". This is very simply, people get raped or they don't. This is not a very healthy nor accurate view of the world. It is a victim-model of existence. Rape is not really common. It certainly does happen and people must protect themselves from that as well as other crimes, but it is not an everyday occurence in people's lives.It is underreported, even my own incident went unreported. In a way I am glad I did not so that I did not become part of the victim factory the US is running. Indeed I am somewhat disturbed when people who haven't been attacked in some way use my case for why they need to feel afraid about the world. I was attacked, and I'm not afraid of the world.Whether most people get attacked by those they know is irrelevant to issues of rape, rather than an interesting demographical statistic. If you think watching all your friends and family is going to protect you it will not. Most attacks come where you least expect them. That's how they succeed. I'm not sure what this even means. I don't believe there is such a thing as "date rape", because you are either raped (even on a date) or you are not. The term "date rape" appears to exist only to water down the definition of rape so that more people could claim victimization. Can you explain what the difference is between rape and "date rape", and why it is so important to have the distinction?I would not call stranger rape rare, but it is certainly less common than getting raped by those you have met or know well. What difference does that make? Actually it doesn't make you forget who you went out for drinks with. Neither can it remove the other evidence which usually comes with sex. If you think people may drug you, then don't let anyone ever pour or touch your drink. That would go with or without GHB. No, you have the same responsibility now as you would have then. Given that anyone could slip you GHB now anyway, you need to protect yourself the same way as if it were being handed out for free.All I am saying is that in a climate where it was being handed out, and somehow "normalized", more people would understand to take care.But I will agree to disagree on whether it would actually lead to anything worse.This message has been edited by holmes, 03-22-2005 04:39 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Wrong. It is a conclusion based on my experiences of people using the term "date rape" to extend the boundaries of rape to include nonviolent and noncoercive situations.How the hell can I be blaming the victim when I am stating that people can be raped on dates and in marriages and that it is important to make sure we do not dilute the definition of rape to make the term "rape" meaningless? Try to come up with an argument please. My position is that there is a clear idea of what rape is. Thus if a person is raped on a date then they are raped and there is no need to add "date" to it.In practice, what we have are women using the "date" clause to wrangle themselves into the "rape" category. That does dilute the image of rape and so demeans those who have actually been through violent or coerced sexual experiences.This does not argue that all women are doing so, nor that no women can be raped on dates. In a way this is almost true. Of course you arre ignoring the much more important point of what I did and why I did it. I did not play this "violation card" because I wanted to be one up on them.What had happened was I got so sick of their tales which were wholly NOT rape or coercion in any sense that I said that what they were talking about was not rape. Then THEY said to me that MEN could not know about RAPE because MEN CANNOT BE RAPED.You see this is part of the demeaning that I was talking about. Men can be and are raped, as well as sexually violated. They could not imagine this, as part of their little play world was woman as perpetual victim (the more victimized the more important) and men as perpetual victimizers.I did not start by playing the card in their game. I didn't want to take part in it at all. Only after they insulted me directly by claiming men could not be violated, did I then give them a clear cut example. They were shamed based both on their ignorance of who can be raped, and the fact that someone who had been listening and then criticizing them actually had a forced sexual encounter.If you think this was not a legitimate tactic, then you can have that opinion. But factually, I was not playing their game nor did I benefit from it (in the sense of how they were benefiting from it).

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This did not create a valid argument for coining the term "date rape" at all. I don't agree that going on a date, or getting married, entitles anyone to sex. And it is valid to be concerned when sex is forced upon another in those situations. From sexual assault to rape, yessiree we can find examples and people to prosecute for those crimes.Now why on earth did the nomenclature have to change in order to protect people on dates and in marriages? That is what you need to argue.Given that you just called my honesty into question, I'm giving you only one chance to get your next post right. Don't deal with strawmen. Wait a second. How does this address what I said at all? You agree with exactly what I said and then turn around and act as if you add something that I don't agree with.You are right that the responsibility will come back on PEOPLE (women are not the only one's getting slipped drugs) to protect themselves. It does create a bad atmosphere when people feel they are not safe and have to protect themselves, but even without GHB being handed out for free, they will still have to do this... right?Until all raping is stopped, this is exactly what will go on and have to be defended against, right? The question is if GHB was being handed out, whether there would be an increase in such rapes in general, as well as if people would have to protect themselves more. My answer is that I don't think they would increase, but regardless people would have to protect themselves just the same.Deal with what I actually say. I'm not saying that women are conspiring against men. I said there are PEOPLE who are interested in fostering a victim culture. This involves growing the boundaries of what is victimization and what is not. Further there are PEOPLE who take advantage of new terminology in order to take part in the victim culture. That is a societal problem that goes beyond just rape cases.In this specific topic "date rape" is a such a dilution and SOME WOMEN I KNEW took advantage of the dilution in order to become victims and so gain status. In fact ALL WOMEN I KNOW WHO CLAIMED DATE RAPE were in fact nothing close to a violent nor coerced situation. This does not show that all women, or most women do such a thing, only that it is being done.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I'm also going to answer your post #82 in this reply... Instead of simply defending the term "date rape", step back and actually look at what I said and the problem it presents.You are absolutely correct that those who have been raped would unlikely be talking about it as these girls had. That is exactly what I was saying.The point is that with the loosened terminology now in use, it allows people like these girls to do exactly what they are doing. Not only is it insulting to people who have actually been violated, but it fosters a culture of victimization.The only valid question here is what is the difference between "date rape" and "rape" and if there is no difference between the two with the exception that one occurs during a date, why it is useful to have it. I think you are well aware (even if you have not experienced discussing this directly in front of you) that "date rape" has come to include situations not overtly coercive or violent. Am I right or wrong on this? I would argue no. These are all offshoots of a branch of feminism which has embraced the new victim culture. There is rape, plain and simple, and the environmental flavor of the rape should not create some new phrase.What does it benefit anyone to have these new terms?My one exception might be incest. That actually has more than one meaning. Incest itself may be forced and may not be, as it is a description of familial connection within a sex act. It may also be a crime in and of itself, regardless of other factors. Thus incestuous rape could very well be a separate valid phrase. Whether the original intent was this or not, how it has come to be used is not in this manner. It lends itself to abuse.I would also argue (if I was arguing with the person that coined the term originally) that doing so is not of any value to making people aware of the reality that people get raped by those they know. Releasing studies showing this would allow people to figure that out better than coining a term which itself is not realistic. As it is, these "date rapes" are not always on dates are they? If just rape causes some sort of confusion, why wouldn't date rape? I am not sure exactly how widespread any of these phenomona were, or are today. Not that I am doubting any stat you want to bring out on it, or that it is important. I am just saying I don't know exact figures.In any case, I don't see how diluting the term rape helped any of these events from not happening. Because it is inaccurate and will have a diluting effect. Why not simply shine light on the subject by addressing them head on with stats and arguments about the nature of rape itself? Yes and this is similar to why incestuous rape might be a valid term. However dating (as much as it might feel like suicide) does not make killing the person you are dating into "date murder". Actually, why don't you open a thread on this as we are getting well off topic here and this will generate more. I can tell you this, if the Justice Department has any stats which show that rape is "really common" I would love to see that.Yes, please show me the definitions they have for "really common" and the stats to show how we fall into that.I was using, and I though this was pretty clear, a definition based on practical usage of that term. It is easy to equivocate and I think you are. That rape is really common makes it sound as if it is an everyday event, or at least really common, to one's life. That may be true in some areas of the world and maybe for a few unlucky individuals, but that is definitely not the case for most people.That is what I tried to bring out. It is NOT common in everyday life. This is exactly the kind of crap I am talking about. I was a victim and now I am a survivor. Puh-lease. This IS what the US victim factory is doing to people.I was victimized by another person. In that moment I was a victim, just as I have been in countless other situations of violence/coercion/or maltreatment. I did not become a victim forevermore. It was an event.Only this was sexual so it must have been more important than the time I was robbed of money, or forced into labor against my will, or other situations we teach usually teach people that they have to move beyond and NOT consider themselves victims.I also "survived", by which I went through a short rough period of adjustment, as I have after other traumatic incidents, and then moved on with life. That does not make me a "survivor".These names are in the past and pointless as identifiers for who I am, and should be beyond teh reach of people to use for their own political agendas. Unfortunately I have continued to be a "victim" and "survivor" and part of a statistic to argue for laws and positions I do not agree with at all and certainly have no relevance to what I learned from my experience. Yes you should not be afraid of the world AND attacks will come from where you least expect them. The problem is thinking they are inconsistent messages. The first is about an attitude regarding the world, the second is about the nature of preparedness for problems that can arise in the world.A person can be terrified constantly and yet ill prepared, or quite open and happy yet well prepared. One does not have to be afraid in order to be cautious or take measures to protect onesself. At least that is what I got out of martial arts.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Yes, this is what I was getting from your post. I'll treat it with the respect it deserves. What is rape and what is date rape? Oh yeah, you don't feel the need to define anything or actually construct a serious argument. That's nice. That's not what I did, and it is utterly vile of you to suggest so. Ahhhhhh, the sweet sound of irony.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

+ What??????Come back when you decide to chuck the strawman angle, these two things are as close to my position as this planet is to the next galaxy.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

Please explain how this necessitated, or was made more understandable by coining the term "date rape", rather than simply making public arguments that women who are in the situation above are "raped"... just plain "raped."In fact I would argue that creating the new definition actually makes people take rape less seriously in general, rather than making rapes by partners more serious. If they are different, that seems to argue against your position. While I think the environment is different, the mechanics are the same. It is a forced sexual situation, brought about by overt or implied violence.If you are trying to argue for rape to extend to nonforced situations, then I want to see a good argument for that.This message has been edited by holmes, 03-22-2005 09:47 AM

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

I would argue I am not discounting the benefits out of hand, because I am relating the very experiences which lead me to believe it lacks merit. Lets review:Definition: Rape is the use of force, overt or implied violence (as well as intentionally usurping a person's will through drugging because resistance is expected), in order to use a person sexually (though the more important aspect is gaining control and/or humiliation).Problem: The stereotype of rape does not match its actual demographic nature. It is less caused by strangers then by aquaintances, and in part this is reinforced by social attitudes regarding forced sex within relationships.Proposed Solution #1: Use new terms which add the relationship of the perp-victim to the original term.Proposed Solution #2: Get the message out that our stereotypes of how rape occurs does not match demographics, and explain (through examples) that our definitions of rape can apply to various relationships between perp-victim.I honestly do not see how #1 has any additional benefits than #2, and I have certainly seen the downside which #2 does not have. First of all I do not believe that study was valid. It sounds a bit ludicrous to me, but for sake of argument (and since I don't have it to look at) I will assume it is completely accurate.Rather than seeing that a sizable amount of men use force, or are willing to use some form of coercion and don't consider it rape, perhaps you should be noting that you just provided evidence for exactly what I was talking about.For those that did admit to rape, they admitted to "aquaintance rape" category. Could that be because they view that as different, and lesser than rape? It'd be interesting to see that same study involve perceptions of one version of rape vs another.But we can even ignore that. What does it show regarding how new terminology would effect their behavior? 72 out of 100,000 during one year is "really common" to you? Honestly? I view that as extremely uncommon.If 72 out of 100,000 abortions ended in a death of the woman, would you consider the charge that maternal death from abortion is "really common"? This is a semantics issue to some degree, so let me try and explain. Yes, people can be victimized. I was a victim.The victim culture involves consistently identifying people based on whether they have been, are now, or may be a victim. It is a way of looking at the world where people are sorted into "Potential Victim" and "Actual Victim" categories. Once a victim, that is what is repeated as their condition and used to justify policies which the "victim" might have no interest in.Thus those involved in the WTC tragedy were victims, but their memories are extended as if that is all they were, and used to justify irrational actions in their name (like attacking Iraq). Suddenly the numerical victims can be revictimized by a political oppressor.What's worse, the status of "victim" becomes somewhat sacred and weak people will capitalize on this notion.We need less victims. Just one assault to be clear. In any case, despite being a "victim" I pretty much reject the "survivor" label. Once we get to the point of saying when one has been treated badly by someone one has been a victim and if you have overcome the emotional trauma one is a survivor, then we have diluted those terms to nothing. In that case we are all victims and survivors. I think that is an unhealthy way of looking at the world.I did have some trauma and dealt with it. I have had much worse traumas, including completely nonsexual ones (though they generally involved deception/force/violence). That does not mean I "survived" or should be identified as a "survivor"Indeed if I went through my other, much worse, traumas I am sure some would trigger you to wonder why I took it so badly and definitely not list me as a survivor... even if I had been victimized.Some rape victims would be properly classified as survivors depending on the nature of their ordeal. I would not begin to put my case in with theirs. I am glad I did not go through an intense violent ordeal with grave physical damage. Yes, but not much. Thankfully I was openminded about sex in general so I wasn't as upset as I could have been (a homophobe would have had to have come out of that much worse for the wear). It was degrading and humiliating and painful. It was traumatic and I can remember that it was bad.However it does not haunt me, with the exception of when I see someone say society needs to do X, and then cites that event in my life as a reason why. That is not an argument at all, it is further victimization.Let's say you someone in school beat the hell out of you and took your lunch money. Would you say a person should still view themselves as a victim and a survivor? That is other than a nominal yes at one time I was victimized and got over the incident? Yes, and I have drawn my own conclusions from my experiences. However others use stats of which I am a part, and then say they are working to defend "those people", which means me, and then completely reject what I have to say. And worse still, some will invent ways to be called victims in order to have their voices carry more weight... as if they are one of "those people.""Those people" generally have their own voices and can tell you what they think is needed to protect them in the future. Some cannot, that is true, but many can and it is degrading to use them to push any specific agenda.The merits of any legislation or other policy should stand or fall on its own.I still do not see the merits of adding "date" to "rape", and alluding to all of the cases of aquaintances raping people they know is not going to change that.

---

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)