Little girls that cry rape are badFollow

An acquaintance may commit forcible rape. However, the term acquaintance rape is usually applied when the sexual intercourse is nonconsensual but does not involve the physical coercion typically associated with forcible rape, such as assault or threats of violence.

Obviously, we have widely differing ideas of what the word "usually" means if you think it explicitly excludes threat of force.

And I said a couple days ago that "does not involve the physical coercion typically associated with forcible rape" was more probably related to cases of drugging/intoxication which are uncommon in random rape than it was likely to relate to "she changed her mind". Apparently, you didn't see the part saying "nonconsentual", i.e. "she willingly had sex but decided later that she regretted it" doesn't fit anywhere into the definition.

Thanks for missing the point though.

A higher conviction rate can be accomplished by making mens rea irrelevant to the crime, thereby redefining rape as a new breed of strict liability offense. As Professor Susan Estrich observes, To refuse to inquire in mens rea . . . [may turn] rape into a strict liability offense where, in the absence of consent, the man is guilty of rape regardless of whether he (or anyone) would have recognized nonconsent in the circumstances.

{{clear enough}}

LDF proponents have asserted that incidents in which the victim herself has not labeled the experience a rape can be validly criminalized.

The difficulty arises, however, when the putative victims nonconsent is presumed for example, because she was intoxicated. Some LDF proponents contend that women are incapable of consenting to sexual activity whenever they are under the influence of alcohol. Consider, for example, a setting in which both parties have become voluntarily intoxicated. In the course of sexual activity, the man may reasonably believe that the woman wants to engage in intercourse in light of her words and deeds. If afterwards the woman comes to think and contend that she did not consent to this sexual contact, most people would oppose finding the mans behavior felonious. A number of LDF proponents, however, would categorize this as rape. Such a position amounts to transforming rape into a strict liability offense.

{{so, going to a party and picking up a drunk girl (even when drunk ourselves) is now rape}}

A second type of serious problem ensues from the way in which LDF seeks to reconstruct the legal import of the womans consent. If a man brings forth a gun or knife, regardless of whether the womanthen verbally agrees to intercourse, her behavior would presumably be that of someone under duress. Hence, the mans guilt would be a proper inference in the factfinders determination. Problems arise, however, when the situation is consistent with two opposite meanings, e.g., no weapon, but the pair are alone in the woods. {{bingo!!}} Perhaps the silent woman is afraid to object; perhaps her consent is unvoiced. Many of the cases that LDF points to as horrible miscarriages of justice fall into this latter scenario. However, such a characterization of these cases rests on the assumption that the womans complaint is valid. Absent this unsupported assumption, one could readily infer either consent or non-consent. Provided the mans testimony is plausible, however, it is difficult without further evidence, such as how they got there or their prior amorous interactions, to determine whether there is consent, much less to infer guilt. This is the underlying reason that the elements of rape are defined so narrowly e.g., requiring force.

{{Forgive me if I'm wrong, but this seems to have been gbaji's point!}}

Once one removes these parameters, the definition of the felony becomes wildly over-inclusive. For instance, if consent required express verbal speech acts on the part of the woman, there would probably be hundreds of times as many acts defined as rape as there are today. Only after a cultural change in which such verbal statements become effectively universal would it make sense to use silenceor even rhetorical "nos" as one per se element of the felony.

Rather than recognizing that its definition of rape is radically overbroad, LDF in effect criticizes the women involved for false consciousness. For instance, one leading feminist scholar specializing in the so-called "date rape" issue expressly states that the majority of raped college students did not realize at the time that they were raped. Others potentially falling in this category would be wives who think that their husbands cannot rape them, and those who have sex while inebriated, because, as some assert, women cannot consent in this state. Presuming that after sexual intercourse such a woman was persuaded that her contemporaneous view was false and that she really did not consent, that woman could truthfully testify at trial that she now believes that she did not consent when the sexual intercourse occurred. Her sexual partner could then be lawfully imprisoned as a felon.

Eliminating any mens rea requirement would surely raise the
conviction rate toward the ninety-eight percent benchmark. By definition, if the woman testified at trial that she currently believes that she did not contemporaneously consent, the man would have to be found guilty.

BJS report NCJ-151658 notes that there are 2 rapes or attempted rapes reported per 1,000 US citizens, which is 530,000 reports of rape per year. There are 15,000 rape convictions annually. Based on new DNA tests, a third of those convictions are now found to be false. Therefore, there are potentially 520,000 false rape allegations a year.

Still convinced there are no legal ramifications to the feminism I posted about above.

Feel free to (try) and argue your way out of the figures I've found.....please!

Feel free to (try) and argue your way out of the figures I've found.....please!

http://www.guardian.co.uk/Society/crimeandpunishment/story/0,8150,820693,00.html

http://www.nycagainstrape.org/survivors_legal.html

{{This to me is a clear-cut change in the law.....}}

http://news.scotsman.com/topics.cfm?tid=53&id=199352005

http://encarta.msn.com/text_761564013__1/Rape_(law).html

{{This actually does seem to give a decent definition to acquaintance rape, among others}}

http://www.met.police.uk/sapphire/press_articles/loophole.htm

{{ There we go, clear evidence of a law change}}

http://www.menshealth.co.uk/news/story.phtml?id=4189

{{Evidence in UK that date-rape drugs are not so prevalent as first thought}}

http://www.aaets.org/arts/art13.htm

{{Look at the statistics in Part IV....that is truly worrying about the state of CURRENT LAW}}

Eliminating any mens rea requirement would surely raise the
conviction rate toward the ninety-eight percent benchmark. By definition, if the woman testified at trial that she currently believes that she did not contemporaneously consent, the man would have to be found guilty.

Geez. I didn't think it was that amazingly controversial of a statement to make. Seemed obvious to me that changes in our laws about rape charges would be the cause of changes in false accusation of rape. Silly me for making such a basic observation...

What "date rape" is, is when a woman has sex with someone but says she didn't really want to.

Advocacy information: 1-in-4 of college women are raped annually

I'm just going to say to all the men out there arguing what's going on in a womans mind (you've never known what we were thinking before, what makes you think you can understand this?): most of us love sex. Most of us are not trying to "cry rape" in order to get back at some man that wronged us.

Women that do cry rape are bad, and the rest of us are not behind her, cheering "You go, girl!"

And yes, quite a lot of women have been subjected to date rape, and it wasn't just "morning after regret". Usually we just regret the fact that we knew the guy that put us in that position in the first place.

Women who are drunk or under the influence of drugs will automatically be regarded as unable to give consent to sex, as part of an overhaul of the law on rape to be announced next month.

LDF proponents have asserted that incidents in which the victim herself has not labeled the experience a rape can be validly criminalized

Only 27 percent of those women whose sexual assault met the legal definition of rape thought of themselves as rape victims.