Statutory rape and gender equality

[Calandale]

I see your point, but it would matter at a trial, because if you take the positive action to fuck them both willingly after you were aroused, that would be considered consent, unless you were under some sort of duress, like you were being held at gunpoint or knifepoint or were drugged or something.

So, you're expressing the view that raping is ok,
as long as consent is given post-facto? Even
temporarily? Wow.

[McGiver]

I see your point, but it would matter at a trial, because if you take the positive action to fuck them both willingly after you were aroused, that would be considered consent, unless you were under some sort of duress, like you were being held at gunpoint or knifepoint or were drugged or something.

So, you're expressing the view that raping is ok,
as long as consent is given post-facto? Even
temporarily? Wow.

i am pretty sure (not with PI, though), that most women will agree to this.
but, only if it had happened to a man and not a woman.

[Callaway]

I see your point, but it would matter at a trial, because if you take the positive action to fuck them both willingly after you were aroused, that would be considered consent, unless you were under some sort of duress, like you were being held at gunpoint or knifepoint or were drugged or something.

So, you're expressing the view that raping is ok,
as long as consent is given post-facto? Even
temporarily? Wow.

i am pretty sure (not with PI, though), that most women will agree to this.
but, only if it had happened to a man and not a woman.

While I think it is possible for a woman to rape a man, I think it would be even more difficult for him to prove in court than it is for a woman.

In an acquaintance rape situation, if it is prosecuted and goes to court the defense will often raise the issue of consent by the victim, because if the perpetrator reasonably believes he or she has consent to sexual intercourse from a person who is of legal age and mental status to grant consent, then the sexual intercourse is not defined as rape.  That is why acquaintance rapes are so difficult to prove FOR BOTH MEN AND WOMEN. 

In your case, you were only 17, which is below the legal age of consent in California, but your two perpetrators were 14, so the age issue would not have been in your favor.  If the perpetrators had been adults, then it would have been.   That is why the issue of implied consent matters.   In my opinion, based on what you have said so far, if you had gone to the police with a rape accusation you would have been more likely to be prosecuted than the two 14 year olds. 

[Litigious]

This is one of the hardest problems there ever were. It's a nightmare to be raped, but it's an about equal nightmare to be innocently convicted for rape. There should be hard punishments for false rape accusations as well, at least the half maximum punishment for rape. In Sweden you usullay go free for false accusations or get feed or get probation or very short time in jail. If you're a "gangster judge" or "gangster prosecutor"   you definitely go free in any case of false accusations. 

[Litigious]

But McJagger has a point: even if a man would be raped by another man, it would be harder to get anywhere with it legally, and it would be even more shameful for most men. The system simply isn't equal for men and women.

[Callaway]

I see your point, but it would matter at a trial, because if you take the positive action to fuck them both willingly after you were aroused, that would be considered consent, unless you were under some sort of duress, like you were being held at gunpoint or knifepoint or were drugged or something.

So, you're expressing the view that raping is ok,
as long as consent is given post-facto? Even
temporarily? Wow.

If he jumped on top of them after they made him horny and voluntarily penetrated them both, then his consent was not "post facto."

If on the other hand, they had physically restrained him and jumped on top of him cowgirl style while he was trying to resist them, that's a different story.

[Callaway]

But McJagger has a point: even if a man would be raped by another man, it would be harder to get anywhere with it legally, and it would be even more shameful for most men. The system simply isn't equal for men and women.

It is very difficult for women to prove that they were raped too, especially if it was an acquaintance rape.

[Callaway]

This is one of the hardest problems there ever were. It's a nightmare to be raped, but it's an about equal nightmare to be innocently convicted for rape. There should be hard punishments for false rape accusations as well, at least the half maximum punishment for rape. In Sweden you usullay go free for false accusations or get feed or get probation or very short time in jail. If you're a "gangster judge" or "gangster prosecutor"   you definitely go free in any case of false accusations. 

So what if someone was actually raped, but the evidence was not convincing enough for the jury to convict the rapist?

Would the rapist then be able to prosecute the victim for false rape accusations?

[Calandale]

This is one of the hardest problems there ever were. It's a nightmare to be raped, but it's an about equal nightmare to be innocently convicted for rape.

Guiltily too. 

If he jumped on top of them after they made him horny and voluntarily penetrated them both, then his consent was not "post facto."

If on the other hand, they had physically restrained him and jumped on top of him cowgirl style while he was trying to resist them, that's a different story.

No, but if they performed oral sodomy on him,
it would be.

[Litigious]

This is one of the hardest problems there ever were. It's a nightmare to be raped, but it's an about equal nightmare to be innocently convicted for rape. There should be hard punishments for false rape accusations as well, at least the half maximum punishment for rape. In Sweden you usullay go free for false accusations or get feed or get probation or very short time in jail. If you're a "gangster judge" or "gangster prosecutor"   you definitely go free in any case of false accusations. 

So what if someone was actually raped, but the evidence was not convincing enough for the jury to convict the rapist?

Would the rapist then be able to prosecute the victim for false rape accusations?

Prosecution would probably be possible, but it wouldn't be possible with a verdict against the victim. And then the rapist would have to pay the trial or as much of it that he could afford. So most freed rapists don't prosecute the victim, which is positive. But there are also horror examples where innocent men have spent years in jail, before it was found out that the "victim" simply was lying.

[Callaway]

This is one of the hardest problems there ever were. It's a nightmare to be raped, but it's an about equal nightmare to be innocently convicted for rape. There should be hard punishments for false rape accusations as well, at least the half maximum punishment for rape. In Sweden you usullay go free for false accusations or get feed or get probation or very short time in jail. If you're a "gangster judge" or "gangster prosecutor"   you definitely go free in any case of false accusations. 

So what if someone was actually raped, but the evidence was not convincing enough for the jury to convict the rapist?

Would the rapist then be able to prosecute the victim for false rape accusations?

Prosecution would probably be possible, but it wouldn't be possible with a verdict against the victim. And then the rapist would have to pay the trial or as much of it that he could afford. So most freed rapists don't prosecute the victim, which is positive. But there are also horror examples where innocent men have spent years in jail, before it was found out that the "victim" simply was lying.

Also there are cases where the victim was really raped but picked the wrong person out of a line-up.  At least these kinds of false convictions will happen less often now that we have the ability to check the DNA, I hope. 

You are right that there should be some sort of punishment for someone who completely fabricates a rape story or any other crime accusation, for that matter, but it might make real victims less likely to come forward because they are afraid of the rapist not only going free, but turning around and prosecuting them as well if he does.

[Calandale]

Also there are cases where the victim was really raped but picked the wrong person out of a line-up.  At least these kinds of false convictions will happen less often now that we have the ability to check the DNA, I hope. 

I don't know. They were ready to prosecute me without ANY physical
evidence of a rape.

[Callaway]

Also there are cases where the victim was really raped but picked the wrong person out of a line-up.  At least these kinds of false convictions will happen less often now that we have the ability to check the DNA, I hope. 

I don't know. They were ready to prosecute me without ANY physical
evidence of a rape.

Was this the case when you tore the woman's face?

[Litigious]

Also there are cases where the victim was really raped but picked the wrong person out of a line-up.  At least these kinds of false convictions will happen less often now that we have the ability to check the DNA, I hope. 

I don't know. They were ready to prosecute me without ANY physical
evidence of a rape.

I was prosecuted and the only "proof" they had was a bruce on the girl's cheek, which came from a collar button on my jacket when we kissed and cuddled in the back seat of my car. No DNA. No proof of intercourse. Thank goodness I was freed.

[Calandale]

Also there are cases where the victim was really raped but picked the wrong person out of a line-up.  At least these kinds of false convictions will happen less often now that we have the ability to check the DNA, I hope. 

I don't know. They were ready to prosecute me without ANY physical
evidence of a rape.

I was prosecuted and the only "proof" they had was a bruce on the girl's cheek, which came from a collar button on my jacket when we kissed and cuddled in the back seat of my car. No DNA. No proof of intercourse. Thank goodness I was freed.

The only reason I was let go, was that my 'victim' testified
in favor of me. Hell, the cops were itching to harm me,
when they arrested me.