To all those men who don’t think the rape jokes are a problem:

I get it—you’re a decent guy. I can even believe it. You’ve never raped anybody. You would NEVER rape anybody. You’re upset that all these feminists are trying to accuse you of doing something, or connect you to doing something, that, as far as you’re concerned, you’ve never done and would never condone. 

And they’ve told you about triggers, and PTSD, and how one in six women is a survivor, and you get it. You do. But you can’t let every time someone gets all upset get in the way of you having a good time, right? Especially when it doesn’t mean anything. Rape jokes have never made YOU go out and rape someone. They never would; they never could. You just don’t see how it matters.

I’m going to tell you how it does matter. And I tell you this because I genuinely believe you mean it when you say you don’t want to hurt anybody, and that it’s important to you to do your best to be a decent and good person, and that you don’t see the harm. And I genuinely believe you when you say you would never associate with a rapist and you think rape really is a very bad thing. 

Here is why I refuse to take rape jokes sitting down…

Because 6% of college-aged men, slightly over 1 in 20, will admit to raping someone in anonymous surveys, as long as the word “rape” isn’t used in the description of the act—and that’s the conservative estimate. Other sources double that number (pdf). 

A lot of people accuse feminists of thinking that all men are rapists. That’s not true. But do you know who think all men are rapists?

Rapists do. 

They really do. In psychological study, the profiling, the studies, it comes out again and again. 

Virtually all rapists genuinely believe that all men rape, and other men just keep it hushed up better. And more, these people who really are rapists are constantly reaffirmed in their belief about the rest of mankind being rapists like them by things like rape jokes, that dismiss and normalize the idea of rape. 

If one in twenty guys (or more) is a real and true rapist, and you have any amount of social activity with other guys like yourself, then it is almost a statistical certainty that one time hanging out with friends and their friends, playing Halo with a bunch of guys online, in a WoW guild, in a pick-up game of basketball, at a bar, or elsewhere, you were talking to a rapist. Not your fault. You can’t tell a rapist apart any better than anyone else can. It’s not like they announce themselves. 

But, here’s the thing. It’s very likely that in some of these interactions with these guys, at some point or another, someone told a rape joke. You, decent guy that you are, understood that they didn’t mean it, and it was just a joke. And so you laughed. 

Or maybe you didn’t laugh. Maybe it just wasn’t a very funny joke. So maybe you just didn’t say anything at all. 

And, decent guy who would never condone rape, who would step in and stop rape if he saw it, who understands that rape is awful and wrong and bad, when you laughed? When you were silent?

That rapist who was in the group with you, that rapist thought that you were on his side. That rapistknew that you were a rapist like him. And he felt validated, and he felt he was among his comrades. 

You. The rapist’s comrade. 

And if that doesn’t make you feel sick to your stomach, if that doesn’t make you want to throw up, if that doesn’t disturb you or bother you or make you feel like maybe you should at least consider not participating in that kind of humor anymore, not abiding it in your presence, not greeting it with silence…

Well, maybe you aren’t as opposed to rapists as you claim.

At the end of the show I wanted to tell my parents how offensive that joke was, and why. I gave a very abbreviated explanation of the quote above. Mum was unimpressed. When I asked her why later, she told me that I was being immature, and that when I’m her and Dad’s age I’ll understand that it’s ok to just relax and laugh at things like that. She thought he was funny.

I really hope she’s wrong.

(Source: mohandasgandhi)

5 real Victorian scenarios from the last 5 years: Should these be considered rape?

1. A woman falls asleep in her sitting room after watching television with friends; her nightdress has ridden up around her hips. She is seen, through her window, by a man whom she had never met before, who was walking down her street after having taken ecstasy and consumed beer. He let himself in through the unlocked front door of her house, and while she is asleep performed oral sex (including penetration) on her – when she woke up he digitally penetrated her vagina.

2. A homeless and drug addicted woman blacks out, awakening in a city park to find a man beating and raping her. She yells out ‘I’m being raped’ several times and is heard by a passerby, who later tells the court it takes 30 seconds for the defendant to respond to his shouts to get off the the victim. Medical evidence of her injuries support a sexual assault hypothesis.

3. A university student at the pub with a group of friends accepted several drinks from a male friend, which unbeknownst to her were doubles and triples. The student became extremely intoxicated and at some point in the evening blacked out. She woke up and discovered the male friend and another friend having sex with her.

4. A sailor at a naval base went back to her room on her own after a party and fell asleep, later to wake up and find a male sailor having sex with her. She said that she had thought of him “like a brother” and would never have agreed to have sex with him. He argued that she had consented and that he stopped having sex with her after she fell asleep.

5. Three (white) men pick up a 12 year old Aboriginal girl. She was given at least four cans of beer in a space of 30 minutes and became very drunk. All three men proceed to have sex with her on the bonnet of the car. She alleges that this was without her consent.

In all of these cases, the rapists were either not convicted, or convicted without punishment.

marxisforbros:

If I was to steal a chocolate bar because it was sitting at the counter looking all tasty, it’d be theft. Nobody would say but oh, look at the creamy picture on the packaging. It was taunting him. He had no choice. It was instinct. Impulse. Drives and desires beyond his control.

If I walked into some person’s home and said I lived there, I’d be arrested. Nobody would say to the owners that they should invest in curtains so that people couldn’t see how nice their house was so easily. Nobody would tell them that they were ‘asking for it’. 

And if I beat a guy up because he was a loud mouth I’d be charged. Nobody would say oh but look at him, he’s a dick. He’s got gel in his hair and he’s wearing a shirt that says “How about a nice cup of shut the fuck up”. The dude is a wanker, he got what he deserved. More importantly, even if they did say that, it wouldn’t effect my charges. 

But if a woman is wearing a short skirt then it will dramatically sway people’s opinions in a rape case. Was it cut above the knee? Was your waist showing? These are serious that will be asked in a court case.

Hell. Yes.

And there are laws saying that such factors are completely inadmissable and aren’t to be raised, but they’re used to sway juries anyway.

Lawyers are horrible for doing it. Juries are horrible for being sucked in.

thingswedidntseecoming replied to your link: Click here for a shoutout to moi, about rape jokes.

could not agree more with this article, glad someone has written about it cos’ I haven’t read anything else that acknowledges that what these dicks are saying is wrong yet, thanks for posting!

monsterpussy replied to your link: Click here for a shoutout to moi, about rape jokes.

i watched all that shit happen. la trobe is full of absolute a-grade morons :(

Ugh, I’m so glad you think so. It’s unbelievable how everyone on that page just gangs up and hurls abuse at anyone who might have a more compassionate worldview. I like to think the page just attracts the worst of La Trobe.

Criminals

delinquential:

Come on tumblr people…

Don’t you understand that criminals DON’T GIVE A DAMN about how strongly you believe you should be able to walk down a street blind drunk, putting yourself in a vulnerable position, without being assaulted…

That is why they are scum.

No, it is not your fault if you are assaulted - and it never will be - but just understand that criminals don’t give a shit.

Someone correct me if I’m wrong.

There’s a lot of confusion here.

The point is not to tell everyone to run out into vulnerable positions just because they believe they have a right to.

The point is that if someone should be walking down the street blind drunk and should find themselves being assaulted, it’s not their fault. It is the CRIMINAL’s fault.

It is important to remember this because sometimes (often) even courts forget. And that is a huge injustice.

The Age is on fire today! Read it.

TRIGGER WARNING FOR RAPE CULTURE

“I’m a bit too late to the party here, but there’s actually something interest[ing] to be said about this.
I’m involved with some rape crisis activism, and one of the metaphors that activists use when talking about date rape is that of drunk driving.
Thirty years ago, the ‘responsible’ attitude toward drunk driving was “On New Year’s Eve, stay off the streets, because there are a lot of drunk drivers out there who might kill you.” And then, starting in the 1980s, there was a concerted public health effort to shift the paradigm toward the phrase we all have drummed into our heads: “Friends don’t let friends drive drunk.” As in, it’s not your responsibility to hide from drunk drivers; it’s your job to recognize that drunk driving is irresponsible and unacceptable, and to prevent your friends from doing it - in other words, to make drunk driving taboo. And it worked! Lots of us in our late 20s think of drunk driving as a secular mortal sin…something we would never, ever do, and that we would be disgusted and angry to have discovered our friends had done.
Right now, we think of it as girls’ responsibility to protect themselves from rape: don’t get tanked! don’t leave your drink unattended! don’t let your friends leave you at the bar! etc. This is the “stay off the streets, drunk drivers might be out there!” safety model. But someday, a generation or so from now, it might be something different. It might be: “Friends don’t let friends have sex with drunk people.” Or, to put it slightly differently: our kids might take it for granted that you need active, sober consent from someone before you bone them. Shocking!
Does that sound horribly harsh? Are you about to rush to your keyboard and say, “That’s so unfair! Lots of times when drunk people say they want to have sex, they really mean it!” Sure. And the truth is, most of the time when you get behind the wheel when you’re drunk, you get home safely. But sometimes, when you drive drunk, people get hurt. And that girl who is stumbling along next to you might be in a blackout, or the survivor of some really fucked up abuse, or you might be too drunk yourself, and in too much of a rush to realize that the scared 18 year old you’re about to get with is whispering “no” and doesn’t mean it as a joke.
Here’s a message from the future: don’t have sex with drunk people. If you meet a drunk girl at the bar, flirt with her, make out with her on the street corner, and program your number into the phone. If she invites you home, hey, sure, go back with her and make out til dawn. Then fall asleep, make some breakfast, and distract yourself from your hangover by doing it to your hearts’ content once you’re sober.
After all, what have you got to lose? If you truly don’t believe she’ll still sleep with you once her head clears…how much was that consent worth to you, really?

—

From a person on Reddit whose name is, surprisingly enough, whataperv.

The original comment is here.

(Source: gregtron, via winsomewalter)

Anonymous asked: What are the nuances of being pressured, coerced or persuaded into sex in regards of rape?

Whether or not the person was pressured or coerced is usually a matter of fact for the jury. Generally if the person submitted because they were afraid of physical, psychological, financial or social/reputation harm, they are supposed to find that it was rape.

At last year’s committal hearing, Lovett’s defence counsel David Grace, QC, asked the complainant about the length of her skirt.

“Was the skirt a short miniskirt?” Mr Grace asked last year. “Was it a skirt that went from the waist down to your thighs?

“Did it start at your waist or below your waist? … Was there any flesh visible between the end of the singlet and the top of the skirt? … What was the distance between the top of the skirt and the bottom of the skirt?”

This year, Mr Grace asked the woman if she intended to wear the clothes she did that night to “make yourself look attractive”.

—

Andrew Lovett Rape Case| Players stepped over crying woman

And people wonder why so few women report sexual assault.

The Andrew Lovett case is prescribed reading for the sexual assault section of my Criminal Law subject.

Three guesses what point the lecturers are trying to make.

(Hint: she was drunk and passing out at the time that he was raping her, so her evidence wasn’t considered reliable enough. He was acquitted.)

(Source: clambistro, via neuroticsanonymous)

sprinkledwords:

“A woman falls asleep in her sitting room after watching television with friends; her nightdress has ridden up around her hips. She is seen, through her window, by a man whom she had never met before, who was walking down her street after having taken ecstasy and consumed beer. He let himself in through the unlocked front door of her house, and while she is asleep performed oral sex (including penetration) on her – when she woke up he digitally penetrated her vagina.”

In my lecture there were 200+ people, all of whom unanimously said that this was rape (and they weren’t necessarily unanimous for all the scenarios we were given).

Of the responses I received on Tumblr, all, as you can see below, are vehemently in support of labelling this scenario as rape, and “serious” rape (if it is even possible to make such a distinction - I don’t believe it is).

Victorian law regarding rape can be found in sections 35-38 of the Crimes Act 1958 (Vic).

Believe it or not, Victorian legislation regarding rape really tries its hardest to protect rape victims. Read it for yourself and you can see that it has come a long way from the definition of rape that existed in 1980 (that it is when a man penetrates a woman who is not his wife’s vagina with his penis while knowing or suspecting that she does not consent).

The problem is that the law is far more progressive than community attitudes.

As a result, the merits of our current legislation are not reflected in judgements.

In this case, the judge did not feel that this case deserved to be prosecuted.

He stated that the man’s actions were “a spontaneous response to an unusual situation.”

He then went on to “wish [him] well in [his] future endeavours.”

In case you were wondering, that was when I started crying.

The convicted rapist received a wholly suspended two year community sentence.

neuroticsanonymous:

I agree with you that this is a terrible case. I too have studied it several times in Law. However, I have to disagree with you regarding the progressiveness of the law. The current definition of rape in Victoria is highly problematic, not progressive. Yes, we have emerged from the dark ages wherein a man could rape his wife in marriage. However, you will find that the majority of reforms in relation to rape and sexual assault law have been procedural as opposed to substantive. For example, we have seen the introduction of Victim Impact Statements and the option of live video feeds into courtrooms so that victims may be examined while in private rooms away from the accused and intimidating courtroom environment. This is procedure. The substantive law, that is the definition in the Crimes Act, has, in spite of constant criticism and reform efforts, changed very little. Ultimately, the problem (as highlighted by the case above) is that rape, unlike any other offence against the person, involves the notion of consent. This makes rape an anomolie in criminal law for the focus of the offence is not on the consequences of the act, but on the mindset of the victim or the circumstances in which the accused acts. The elements of rape are, put simply:

• intentional sexual penetration;
• without consent of person being penetrated;
• while being aware of that person’s lack of consent

It is this idea of consent and the ‘awareness’ of one’s consent that allows for abominable judgments like these: that a drunk, high man in an ‘unusual’ circumstance mistakenly believed that a woman lying in his wake was up for it. Take away the consent element and this reading could not be achieved. It is here that I agree with my two brilliant lecturers Peter Rush and Alison Young, who have both written extensively about the need to remove the consent element and make rape an offence similar to that of homicide which focuses on the consequential harm suffered by the victim. In rape, the consequential harm suffered by the survivor of sexual violence should be the focus of the actus reus (act) and not consent. If the circumstance of consent was not part of the actus reus, then the mens rea (mind of the accused) could simply be an intention or recklessness as to the harm suffered by the victim. Consent and awareness of consent should be irrelevant - you cannot consent to murder, so how can you consent to rape? The law thus reflects deeply rooted notions about gender relations and specifically, attitudes towards women.

sprinkledwords:

This particular case wasn’t problematic because of debate about whether or not consent was given; if it was he would never have been convicted in the first place. In this case, the judge stated “at no time did you have any reason to believe that you could have consensual sex with the victim” and the rapist admitted this himself.

The problem with this particular case, from what I’ve read, is that this is one of the very rare cases when the rapist pleads guilty and admits to everything he’s done - and yet he escapes virtually unpunished because the judge believes that the rapist is otherwise a pretty decent bloke and has a high chance of rehabilitation. I’ve always thought I was a big believer in the value of rehabilitation, but the way this case was treated? No.

I agree, though, that inability to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the rapist knew or was reckless about whether consent was given is highly problematic. I’ve refrained from commenting about that particular aspect because I don’t feel I know enough about it yet.

The one solution to this that has never, ever occurred to me is the idea that you can remove the concept of consent from rape altogether. Consent for this crime seems logical; sex is not always a crime - when consent is given it is a very normal act between two people (or three or four…). At this stage I can only see a multitude of problems with the idea that the test of resultant harm should be used as an alternative to ascertaining whether consent was given, and if the community’s attitudes towards women and promiscuity remain then I don’t see it making much of a difference at all, but I will read up on Peter Rush and Alison Young’s work on the topic, ask Emma Henderson what she thinks, and perhaps decide then.

neuroticsanonymous: If you can recommend any of their work in particular, that would be very helpful.

Injustices happen everyday. So why am I posting so much about sexual assault?

Reading about horrific crimes in the news rarely fazes me. Once they’re on the front page, there’s public outrage, and the criminal is probably going to get what he or she deserves.

So I did not expect to be driven to tears 30 minutes into my first Criminal Law lecture on sexual assault.

Why should I be? As I’ve previously said, I’ve never been a victim of sexual assault of any kind. I don’t find myself getting emotional over tragic stories in the papers, even rape cases.

Why this, now?

The reason is that I never realised the extent to which patriarchal ideas of what rape is dictate how the crime and its victims are treated, both among men and women. Our lecturer described what society believes to be “real” rape as such:

“’Real’ rape is very real and very bad. It happens when a girl or woman is attacked violently and physically by someone she has never met before, with visible physical evidence of fighting off her attacker. She cannot have been drinking or taking drugs, and preferably never has before, so that we’ll believe her. She cannot be wearing provocative clothing at the time (but we’re not sure exactly what that means because what is considered ‘provocative’ differs to different men). She must be a ‘nice’ girl – not promiscuous, not a prostitute, not a model (as we’ve seen in the Andrew Lovett trial, being a model means you’re not ‘nice’). She must not irresponsible about her safety. We have to understand why she was attacked, where she was and why she was on her own. If she was at home, she must have locked the door and pulled the curtains.”
- Emma Henderson

The reality is that all rape is real rape, and all rape is serious rape. It doesn’t matter how many sexual partners a woman has had, how she was dressed, how drunk she was, or if she’s a sex worker. If she did not give her consent at the time that you penetrate her mouth, vagina or anus with your penis or any other body part or object, then you are a rapist. If she is not or is no longer capable of giving informed consent and you penetrate her, you are a rapist. If she gives her consent but you know that she thinks you are someone else, you are a rapist. If she gives her consent but is not capable of understanding what sex is, you are a rapist. If she gives her consent but changes her mind halfway through and you do not immediately withdraw, you are a rapist.

What I didn’t know was that the law reflects this, and makes a great effort to ensure that judges and juries understand.

It’s judges and juries that persist in focusing on the actions of the victim rather than the actions of the rapist.

This revolting, patriarchal idea that men simply cannot be expected to have self control when presented with a tempting woman, especially when the man is drunk or drugged, and the onus is on women to prevent this temptation – otherwise, it’s their own fault.

Most people don’t want to hear about this, which is exactly why every one of you should learn more about it.

Slut shaming is a serious societal problem.

Any one of you could be a juror.

Any past, present or future law student amongst you could be a judge.

By sharing this information any one of you could make all the difference to how the justice system operates, and to the life of a victim of sexual assault.

Re: DPP v David Sims

Imagine the following scenario: a child falls asleep in her dressing gown in the living room. The light is on, the curtains are open and the door, tragically, is unlocked. Later she wakes to a man raping her on the couch. He is apprehended immediately, and pleads guilty. In his sentencing remarks, the judge comments that this man’s crime was “a spontaneous response to an unusual situation”. Rather than imprisoning him for the rape, the judge suspends the sentence of the perpetrator and wishes him well for the future.

What would be the community’s response to such a judicial decision? Surely it would be immediate, indignant and overwhelming. But this event is not a fiction: it has indeed occurred, only the victim was a young woman, not a child - a point that apparently makes all the difference.

Last week, “Sigrid” (the young woman at the centre of this case) wrote to Terry Bracks, the Premier’s wife. Sigrid had just been told that the Office of Public Prosecutions would not appeal to the High Court for a custodial sentence for 26-year-old David Leslie Sims, the man who raped her in her living room while she slept. She wanted Terry Bracks to persuade the Premier to do something about rape sentencing in Victoria, and to make sure that what happened to her wouldn’t happen to anyone else.

According to Steve Bracks, the letter should have been addressed to him as “an elected official”, and his wife should have been left out of it. I think he’s wrong.

There is a simple reason why this woman wrote to Mrs and not Mr Bracks: she wanted to address a woman and not a man. Why? Because it is the perspective of women that is so lacking in this case.

What this young woman suffered was a process of judgement enacted entirely by men. You could be forgiven for thinking that in this enlightened age, gender shouldn’t make any difference. Tragically, this case proves that hope wrong.

It was men - the judge, the lawyers - who assessed Sims’ response to the image of the woman lit up in her window, and agreed that his decision to break into her house and rape her twice was “spontaneous”. But this word conceals a host of patriarchal values. It implies that the perpetrator’s actions were quick, natural and not premeditated. Think about this for a moment: it is “natural” to attack a woman who is visible, sleeping and exposed in her own home, behind an unlocked door. Really? Surely the only thing “spontaneous” here is the explosion of sexist beliefs that support this line of reasoning.

Such an assumption invokes outdated mythologies about male sexuality. It presumes that men have uncontrollable desires, and that it understandable and obvious for them to act on them, regardless of the will of the other people involved. It also relies on discredited assumptions about female sexuality: that women (once sexually active) are constantly available, and cannot then be seriously injured by the predations of men.

The fact that this case is more about gender mythologies than the actual crime can be shown by substituting another kind of victim for the woman in that window: a child, or indeed another man. If these categories of person had suffered the attack, the crime would be unambiguously serious, with the perpetrator having little hope of avoiding a significant custodial sentence. It would be hard to imagine the mitigating circumstances listed by the judge - including the fact that this was a first offence and Sims was a hard-working man - having any purchase in these circumstances.

What is most disturbing here for women is that the claim that this rape was a “spontaneous response to an unusual situation” is not only the explanation of the accused but the final conclusion of the law. On this point, the law is literally aligned with the perspective of the perpetrator. No wonder rape victims are reluctant to bring charges into the system. What woman could know the details of this case and feel encouraged to turn to the law for redress in similar circumstances?

The review by the Sentencing Advisory Council of the sentencing of sex offenders is welcome in this context. But it will fail in its brief unless it gets to the bottom of the outdated and odious assumptions about gender that made a sentence such as this possible in the first place. Surely you don’t need to be a woman to understand that?

sara-and-company-deactivated201 asked: Hey! Sorry if this is a stupid question, but what's the difference between "rape" and "serious rape"? Am I reading this wrong?

The point of the question is to gauge what the average person thinks rape is and what ‘serious’ rape is.

Edit: In the case, here, the judge refers to this scenario as not being “serious” rape.