Nina: "If you came home tonight and ... all your valuable goods stolen you would say that you had been robbed"

You miss the point Nina. Everyone has the same definition of robbed, but there are two definitions of rapped. To women, it means they feel they have been violated against their wishes. To men, it means sex was forced on a person when they made it explicit they didn't want it. Thus in the eyes of we males, for the man to be guilty of rape he has to know it was against the women's wishes. For women it is sufficient that it was - the man doesn't have to know.

On one level the woman's definition seems entirely reasonable. The trauma a rape causes isn't related to what man knew or what he thought he was doing. Thus if we base the law on harm caused, and we usually do, then it should be on the woman's definition.

But to repeat the point made here ad-nauseam, the law will be abused if it isn't based on what can be observed by others, and the only person who can be really sure of what a woman feels is the woman herself. Thus the law has to take the man's view on this. I am guessing you don't disagree with this. You nonetheless use the woman's definition of rape when you say a large percentage of rapes aren't prosecuted. On that basis the statement is miss-leading at best.

Antiseptic: "Why is she absolved of responsibility in this circumstance while he is not?"

Generally being drunk or high or stupid isn't an excuse for committing a crime. We prosecute drunk drivers with the full force of the law. We don't prosecute people for doing stupid things and harming themselves, but to say they are absolved of responsibility is taking it too far. Most will look at them and say, "well you put youself at risk and got hurt, *shrug*". In the case of rape that seems unfair, as most women who were rapped don't knowing put themselves at risk.

Nina,

as you may be aware, there are some women who believe any form of penetrative sex is rape, there is another group who believe that any sex not initiated by a women is rape.

An australian judge got into trouble for saying the obvious, that almost all forms of heterosexual sexual behaviour can now be seen as rape/sexual assault.

It would appear that you beleive that any man who is accused of rape should be punished, and a trial is a mere formality.

In WA there was a man convicted of rape because he didn't withdraw soon enough, after his partner withdrew consent. It was a few years later found out that he had been set up by his wife and her friend.

rstuart:"We don't prosecute people for doing stupid things and harming themselves, but to say they are absolved of responsibility is taking it too far."

All well and good, but if the decision to participate in sex was not coerced and both participants were equally impaired, why is the woman deemed insufficiently capable as to be irresponsible and the man is not?

If she gets the dry heaves when he's at the vinegar stroke, why is he deemed responsible for overcoming an autonomic response, while she is not?

Given that no coercion has occurred, and that there is no unwanted pregnancy, why is the shape of the sex organs relevant?

rstuart: <"Thus in the eyes of we males, for the man to be guilty of rape he has to know it was against the women's wishes.">

The clue is that silence is not consent. The assumption must always be NO sex; no hands on anyone else's body until there is clear and expressed consent.

James: There are a number of ways that crime data are collected. The word "alleged" isn't even relevant when population surveys of victimization are done. (I think there are two main ones as well as various individual research projects). These surveys aren't just done about sexual assault but about all sorts of crimes. So what motive is there for someone to anonymously tell a researcher that they were raped - bearing in mind that the results include responses from males as well as females.

The other way that crime data is collected is by what's called "recorded crime" - meaning, where there is an official record, such as a hospital emergency file or a police report.

Conviction rates for all crimes are one area of recording how well services - police, courts, community corrections and so on, are being accessed and how they are handling the flow of cases. The rate of conviction is compared to survey data as well as to figures for recorded crimes.

There are large disparities between findings and one of the reasons for that is that different surveys obtain answers from respondents in different age groups - for example, some question people over 16 and some only question people over 18.

You can look these things up yourself to obtain details at the Aus Institute of Criminology; Bureau of Crime Stats; Lawlink and other places that carry peer reviewed papers.

Antiseptic:

You seem to think that contact with a crisis centre is necessarily a charge against someone. Sexual assault services are not investigative bodies. Very, very few such contacts involve a police response.

The reason for this is that rape takes away someone's control over their most personal sense of physical and emotional self; therefore the ethos of SA services is to give the victim complete authority over how to proceed - whether to have a rape kit done at a local hospital; whether the matter is reported to police; whether anyone else is told. Only in the case of children is SA a matter of mandatory reporting by service providers.

MOST BY FAR don't report to police.

With rape supportive attitudes such as those expressed in these forums, it's no wonder so few report. It takes a lot of courage to make contact and risk condemnation (such as that which is expressed on these pages). That is why it's vital that at least one source of dependable, empathic support be available

James and Antiseptic:

About 4 dozen senior citizens a year are raped; 6 or 8 of which are male. Towards the other end of the spectrum - male and female victims aged 10 to 15. Casting the same blanket of doubt over all cases that you apply to females; what possible motive can there be for a boy aged 11 or a man aged 66 to say they were sexually assaulted ? All the evidence is pretty much the same. Would you believe them more than you would a female ? If so, you need to reflect on why.

James the cases to which you refer make the news because they're atypical. How atypical do you think these cases are:

http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2009/0129092mccarl1.html

This doesn't seem just or right to me:

http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/articles/2009/03/02/1235842361318.html

This woman was asleep in her bedroom; locked door. The fellow scaled a high fence; climbed over the balcony and removed a fly screen to gain entry. A jury took 10 minutes to acquit him.

He also has a history of other ordinry assault.
http://www.finda.com.au/story/2008/10/09/soldier-faces-trial-rape-charge/

Anti

as Pynchme has already correctly outlined SA services are not investigatory bodies (unlike police) and have no punitive powers (unlike courts). A person who contacted a SA service in order to try and 'get back' at someone would get no where. The services are there to assist people who are traumatised get through the daily struggle. Most people who call have symptoms like sleeplessness, inability to eat, concentrate, panic attacks, afraid to be alone, afraid to be in crowds, depression, self harming, hypervigilance, suicidality, flashbacks and nightmares, unresolved anger, lack of self worth, etc. etc. These are all symptoms of PTSD as outlined in the DSM-IV. The RCC does not encourage telling victims to go to the police and instead the aim is to tell the victim their options and allow them the space to make their own decisions. When a person is raped they have all control over their lives stripped from them; the last thing they need is someone insisting that they do this or that (such as report or confront the offender) so best practice counsellors never try and push a client in any direction.

JamesH
"It would appear that you beleive that any man who is accused of rape should be punished, and a trial is a mere formality."
This is ludicrous. Let me clarrify my position;
1)I have never ever suggested that people who are innocent of rape should be punished or that all accusations are true
2) Some people do falsify charges though under reporting not falsified reporting is the biggest problem
3)People who do falsify reports are the worst of the worst as they ruin the accused lives but they also cast doubt on the veracity of legitimate victims
4)people who have been raped deserve counselling and support
There. That's it. That's my crazy crazy feminist manifesto. Stop misrepresenting me