The court would have to decide if a rape occured. But surely you have to recognize that, if a woman comes out of that experience victimized, surely more occured than simply two people fooling around.
I meant it as if one or both were trashed and both were all about it. They both had sex, both enjoyed it and crashed out. When the woman woke up the next day, she 'assumed' that she was taken advantage of, in essence, raped, even though she was nowhere near raped by any reasonable standard. Would the courts simply throw the book at him over her testimony? It sounds like a tough case, because he's absolutely bewildered and she is not being malicious, she honestly believes in her mind that she was raped. It sounds like a very tough case. Of course this is all hypothetical but I'm sure something like this has happened before.
With the extent to which we re-victimize rape victims in our legal system, the idea that a woman would emerge from such an experience and think it was a good idea to fabricate a rape charge is mythical, ridiculous.
Some people have fabricated rape. That's neither mythical nor mysterious. But my scenario doesn't have that malicious intent. My scenario has a women who honestly thinks she was raped.
The reason that only about 20% of rapes are reported - not to even mention how few are prosecuted - is that the victim gets raked over the coals, her life turned inside out for just the slightest hint that she's ever drank alcohol, or ever had sex except in the most chaste, mainstream way, or was dressed in anything but sackcloth.
What are you talking about? What does this have to do with the scenario? What woman gets raked over the coals for drinking alcohol or unchaste sex in a court of law? A rape charge isn't going to be decided by some activist judge but a jury of her peers as is with all criminal cases.
I don't know what you mean by "stand-up guy." I don't see what that has to do with rape.
That's me saying that the guy in the scenario is not a rapist. Other than this accusation, he's a stand-up guy. That's what I meant.
If you're under the mistaken impression that rape, being a monstrous crime, is something only a monster is capable of, you're quite wrong. The simple fact is that even "stand-up guys" rape women. Rapists have friends, jobs, spouses and girlfriends even. I'm sure you know a few rapists. Just think about that. Some of your closest friends are probably rapists. There's simply too many men raping women for that not to be true.
What does this have to do with anything? You are talking about apples while I'm speaking about oranges.
Crimes don't get canceled out simply because the criminal is a "stand-up guy." Rape doesn't simply evaporate because you were too drunk to be in control of your actions. If a woman comes out of that victimized, the fact that you were drunk when you were raping her - the fact that you told yourself you had her consent - is irrelevant. Why on Earth would you expect that to matter?
The entire point of the post is that he didn't rape her, rather, he had consensual sex with her. If they were both drunk would they cancel each other's rape's out? If they were both just smashed, did they rape each other, or did they have drunken consensual sex?
™ Version 4.2
