Changing Rape Culture
[NOTE: I AM ONLY SPEAKING OF RAPE THAT IS COMMITTED AGAINST ADULTS, OR THOSE WHO APPEAR TO BE ADULTS. statistics on rape are broken into different categories - i am NOT speaking about pedophillia, ebophillia [however it's spelled], "statutory rape" where the "victim" was consenting, or other rapes committed against those who are legally unable to consent. i am speaking strictly about adult rape, and statutory rape where the victim is considered by law to be old enough to have sex with people in the same age group, but was raped by a person old enough that it wasn't *just* rape, but also statutory rape.]
i've been in the middle of an argument with another feminist for over a week now. what are we arguing about?
i'm not completely sure.
see, it started with a post by a blogger about the judicial system and rape. and what could be done to improve the way Law Enforcement [in it's entirety - from cops to judges] deals with rape cases. a commenter asked "but what can be done?"
i answered with a longish list, that MOSTLY dealt with non-law changes. i made it clear that i wasn't discussing changing the law because A) i'm not educated enough ABOUT the law to feel comfortable doing so, and B) the laws HAVE been changed [rape used to be a crime committed against a MAN - if you raped his wife, daughter, mother, sister. not a crime committed against the person raped - and not a crime that could have male victims at ALL] and LEO - and JURIES, for fuck's sake - STILL manage to ignore law changes and treat the victim like a whore while treating the rapist like either an innocent man having his life ruined by a bitch or a fucking HERO.
and some person [who, apparantly, is male, according to the other commenter i'll bring up in a minute] decided that i said something along the lines of "and this is why the presumption of innocence is a bad thing.".
i didn't say that. i didn't even fucking IMPLY that. so i told this poster to re-read what i fucking wrote because i didn't write or even imply that, and no i DON'T think the presumption of innocence should go away.
[this person does not know me, and has never read my LJ. i know that a LONG time ago, i wrote a post wherein i wondered if getting rid of presumption of innocence might help in the fight to stop rape. i wrote about that taking place in an ideal society where we have ways to ALWAYS get the EXACT fucking facts, so that it would be IMPOSSIBLE for the wrong person to be charged with rape. in today's world, there's no fucking way i'd be okay with presumption of innocence being thrown out.]
a DIFFERENT poster immedietly started attacking me and my ideas.
we went back and forth, me saying something, she twisting it and turning it until the worst possible interpretation was made - except, of course, when she flat out fucking said i said something i DIDN'T.
this poster goes on and on about how the current laws work to ensure victims are blamed and rapists walked. after several exchanges, she asked me [essentially] "why do you keep talking about presumtion of innocence? i'm talking about OTHER THINGS."
and i said "Oh. there's our point of rupture, then - we're talking about two different things. all i've been talking about in the past several comments was presumption of innocence. ok. you're talking about other things. *comment on other things*"
she THEN proceeded to castigate me, telling me that i was "just believing what some liberal dude told [me] about presumption of innocence - but it IS the presumption of innocence that causes all this!"
and i'm sitting here going "wait. you just FUCKING SAID that you weren't talking about presumption of innocence. so i go to try and talk about what YOU SAID you were talking about, only you NOW are talking about presumption of innocence. oh, and i don't know anything for myself, i've never studied or FUCKING BEEN THERE, everything i know i learned from some random liberal dude who happens to be a misogynist. what?"
the argument continues.
but.
i've been thinking about it.
one of the things i said, that the FIRST person attacked me for, was that we need to educate people - ESPECIALLY anyone on a jury - that presumption of innocence on the accused's part does not mean presumption of GUILT on the victim's part.
[the person i'm arguing with doesn't see when i write this. over and over again i've written that whole sentence, but all SHE sees is "we can't assume rapists are guilty." which isn't what i fucking SAID! *RAGE*]
let me repeat that: the accused has the right to a presumption of innocence, that is, it is up to the prosecuter to PROVE the accused is guilty, rather than it being up to the accused to prove zie is INNOCENT. this DOES NOT MEAN that one must assume the accuser - the victim - MUST be lying.
but that's how people take it. "innocent until proven guilty - well, if's he's innocent, then she's lying!" [feel free to mix and match pronouns...]
this train of thought lines up *perfectly* with all the OTHER victim blaming that happens.
the jury is told, over and over, that they have a DUTY to grant the accused the benefit of the doubt - that it's their JOB to start off with a stance of "this person is not guilty of rape." that almost always turns into "that person IS guilty of falsely accusing someone of rape."
which, on it's face, is fucking ridiculous. EVERY agency that keeps criminal statistics will show you the statistics for false accusations - and, over all, false rape accusations are actually given at rates ranging from slightly LOWER to HALF than rate of false accusation of other violent crimes .
not to mention that false reports are themselves crimes, and people who commit the crime of falsely report a rape are themselves liable for criminal charges - and they DO get charged.
if one were to listen to the MRA-types, they'd get the impression that MOST rape accusations are false - it never happened at all, he wouldn't fuck her so she reported him for rape; she wanted to have sex with him, but regreted it, so she reported it for rape; she wanted a relationship where he wanted a one-night stand, so she reported him for rape.
also note how in MRA world, ONLY women report rape, and they ONLY report men for raping.
now, this isn't exactly incorrect - the majority of reported rapes are committed by males. breakdown:
90% of reported rapes are men raping women
8% of reported rapes are men raping men.
1.8% of reported rapes are women raping anyone
.2% of reported rapes are "other" or "victim was unsure of sex of rapist"
but these are REPORTED RAPES ONLY. we KNOW that rapes committed AGAINST men, and rapes committed BY women, are even MORE underreported than man-raping-woman rapes.
and agencies estimated that anywhere from 60% to 80% of those man-raping-women rapes aren't reported - what does that say about other forms of rape?
so juries are told, constantly, to remember "the accused is ONLY accused - the accused is innocent unless found guilty" and then treated to a long parade of people willing to tell them how the victim was to blame. and generally, people are quite willing to along with blaming the victim. there are several reasons for this - from the fear of rape, and how it could happen to ANYONE, so you make "rules" that will "protect" you from being raped, to a bone-deep belief that all women are naturally consenting, that it's impossible FOR women to NOT consent, because women aren't people - no, women ARE SEX. there are hundreds, if not thousands, of reasons that people are so willing to believe victim blaming. i'm sure there are hundreds we don't even suspect yet. couple this with a belief that men are, literally, incapable of controlling sexual urges, and shouldn't have to, because it's the job of WOMEN to be sexual gatekeepers and ensure they aren't raped - or a belief that there are two "types" of men - nice, normal men who would NEVER hurt, let alone rape, ANYONE, and "beasts" who will rape ANYTHING, and women are just SO STUPID that they can't tell men from beasts. and since the man sitting at the table for the defense OBVIOUSLY isn't a "beast", it's equally OBVIOUS that he didn't rape ANYONE, let alone that trashy, trampy slut who accused him!
and THEN add rape shield laws - designed to protect the victim from having her name dragged thru the mud - that are routinely used to prevent the prosecution from proving a history of sexual violence and predation on the accused's part... while NOT being used to protect the victim.
and you have the heart of the problem.
there are SO MANY THINGS to unpack about rape in our society.
*victim blaming, and why it's so common.
*the lack of reporting, due to victim blaming.
*the almost-idealization of certain types of rape by media. [like that mall-cop movie...]
*the inability of people to understand that while the accused may be "presumed innocent", the victim was still raped. hell, i can think of ways that the accused was innocent EVEN THOUGH THE VICTIM *WAS* RAPED. mistaken identity being the easiest. or someone ELSE gave the victim a date-rape drug, and the accused didn't KNOW the victim was drugged and unable to consent*, etc.
*the assumption that people ARE consenting UNLESS they say no. and say it "in the right way." in the way that MEANS "no", as opposed to the way that means "i'm saying no but meaning yes". and everyone KNOWS that most "no"s REALLY mean "yes". [**RAGE**]
*the assumption that ALL men are consenting to ALL sex ALL the time, because they're men.
*the assumption that ALL women are consenting to ALL sex ALL the time, because they're not people, they're actually sex itself.
*as in, people don't perform the act[art!] of sex with each other, men TAKE [or trick, steal, "earn", whatever] sex from women. women aren't capable of "performing" sex; they are the thing necessary for a MAN to HAVE/GET sex. [and this just leaves LGBTQIA people out of the equation...]
*which makes sex an actual BATTLE, where men are trying to "get" sex from women, while women are charged with making sure men DON'T "get" sex. because sex is somehow bad.
*but men have this actual, physical, NEED for sex - they'll DIE without it - so it's perfectly acceptable for men to *take* what they "need". and you're a frigid bitch for not giving them sex because they'll DIE without sex. if you'd just GIVEN him what he NEEDED, he wouldn't have "HAD" to rape you.
*the wide-spread belief that rapists rape because they were overcome with "lust" and "unable to control themselves" - and so aren't guilty of RAPE, lordy no! it was ZIR fault for lookin' all sexy!
*the wide-spread belief that it's OKAY for rapists to be "unable to control themselves."
*and, after all, rape is a COMPLIMENT - you were just "SO SEXY" that your rapist "couldn't control themself". be flattered! any sexual attention is positive, no matter what! stop rejecting people who think you're so sexy they "must" rape you, you frigid bitch!
*only "cockteases" are raped
*only frigid bitches are raped
*the wide-spread belief that if ONLY the victim hadn't X...
*the wide-spread belief that one can "owe" someone sex - even if it wasn't a negotiated thing. so you can go to dinner with someone, they can INSIST on paying for it all, and when they rape you, it wasn't "rape", it was "sex you owed them." but it's NOT prostitution and the rapist will NEVER be charged with trying to buy sex, and it's just something you should have KNOWN, that if you go on a date with that person, you "OWE" them sex. even if you payed for yourself**. even if you didn't like the person on the date. even if it was a HORRIBLE date and you now HATED the person
*the wide-spread belief that ONLY female virgins who are "modest" and never, ever do anything "bad" are rapeable.
*the wide-spread belief that anyone who isn't "attractive" WILL NOT EVER be raped [and, as a corallery, should be "FLATTERED" that a rapist raped them. or rather, be "FLATTERED" that someone felt any "desire" for them, because they're "unattractive" and so NO ONE wants to have sex with them... because that's what it was, "sex", because who'd RAPE them? they're too UGLY to rape...]
*the wide-spread belief that anyone who IS attractive is "asking for it"
*the wide-spread belief that once you give consent to have sex with a person, you can NEVER revoke it - they could come back a decade later and rape you, but you once VOLUNTARILY had sex with them, so it WASN'T rape, because you "consented" a decade before.
*the wide-spread belief that once you give consent to ANYONE, you automatically give consent to EVERYONE.
*the wide-spread belief that if you're in a relationship with someone, you've AUTOMATICALLY consented to ALL sex within that relationship. even when you say "no".
*the wide-spread belief that prostitutes and other sex workers can't be raped - at most, it was "theft of services"
i could go on. there are SO MANY FUCKED UP VIEWS, and most people believe most of them... including those who should know better [the people charged with upholding the law.]
do i have an "answer". i think i do, of sorts. the reason that other commenter that i refered to is so mad [i think] is because that other commenter doesn't want to HEAR "yes, but it's going to take time." she wants a solution that will start to work RIGHT NOW.
and that's just not feasible. i mean, i want that, too! but i see NO FUCKING WAY to do it. the "best" - actually ONLY - way to have an instant fix of how we, as a society, deal with rape is to change the law, and make it so every person accused of rape is automatically found guilty and punished.
aside from how that violates, like, EVERY fucking part of the legal code - not to mention the ideals this country was founded on - ALL it'a going to do is encourage a LOT of people to cry wolf. don't get me wrong - i'm betting that a large majority of those who file rape reports, at least in the beginning, will have been raped. but it will VERY QUICKLY spiral out of control [and can you just SEE all the MRAs and PUAs filing rape reports against every fucking woman and girl who rejects them? *I* can!]
i... i don't WANT to believe that's what the other commenter wants. but i'm having trouble convincing myself.
in the meantime, there ARE things that we can do. that we SHOULD do. and they aren't "change the laws to be more strict" - if the laws were followed as intended, we'd be in good fucking shape.
they aren't.
most rapes aren't reported. of those that ARE reported, most go NOWHERE. the police may or may not actually investigate; a rape kit may or may not be processed; the DA may or may not decided to prosecute. i've seen estimates that say as few as 20% of reported rapes actually make it to trial [and as i said above, most agencies in the US feel that only 20%-40% of man-raping-woman rapes are reported, and even FEWER rapes with other perpetrators or victims are reported].
and then, most rapists aren't convicted.
of those who are, most are convicted of lesser crimes.
of those who are actually convicted of rape, most are given the smallest possible sentence.
rape is the GEICO of violent crimes in our culture - minimal effort, minimal spending.
what can we do?
we can - we MUST - change the culture.
it's a tall order. we've been working on it for over a century. the 19th Amendment was passed in August of 1920. this allowed women to vote in FEDERAL elections, and by virtue of the 14th, in ALL elections.
Section 1: The right of citizens of the United States to vote shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or by any State on account of sex.
Section 2: Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.
it took 41 YEARS of this proposed bill being presented to Congress, EVERY YEAR, to get it passed. 41 YEARS! for the basic right and responsibility of citizenship to be extended to the other half of the population. that's INSANE.
and yet. since then, the work hasn't stopped. in 1920, there were still laws in the books of some states - coverture laws - mandating that any pay a married woman earned was to be turned over directly to her husband. "An unmarried woman had the right to own property and make contracts in her own name. A maried woman was not recognized as having legal rights and obligations distinct from those of her husband in most respects. Instead, through marriage a woman's existence was incorporated into that of her husband, so that she had very few recognized individual rights of her own.***" Married women literally did not exist under the law as persons distinct from their husbands. "As it has been pithily expressed, husband and wife were one person as far as the law was concerned, and that person was the husband***." while there were "Privy Examinations" - essentially, if a woman owned property before becoming married, or recieved property from anyone EXCEPT her husband WHILE married, she could petition the courts for the right to handle the property on her own, to buy or sell or whatever WITHOUT her husband's permission - the fact of the matter was that a married woman HAD to get a court to sign off on her making any sort contract if her husband wouldn't LET her. either way, a married woman had to get the permission of SOMEONE to do ANYTHING with property that was HERS ALONE. and that was ONLY possible *IF* there was a pre-nup contract that KEPT her property as hers alone - the assumption of the law being that, by entering into marriage, anything the wife owned was now owned by both equally but controled exclusively by the husband - AND said pre-nup was considered valid and upheld... and this was dicey and uncertain, because it was NOT LEGAL for married couples to have or make contracts with each other, and most pre-nups were voided once the couple got married. in effect, the marriage contract voided ALL previous contracts between a married couple.
WHY would a woman get married at ALL, then? i mean, aside from love and wanting children [because you did NOT have a child out of wedlock in the 20's. because you'd very quickly find yourself living on the streets or worse. lets not even think about the life of the CHILD in those situations, or i'll be sick.]
because women weren't really ABLE to live legally without a man. it's true that, from about 1850 on, it became POSSIBLE for SOME women to live as adults without being married.
but it was INCREDIBLY difficult.
the law tended to assume that an unmarried woman was still in the custody of her father [or other male guardian]. most of the women who managed to be legal adults without marriage either had supportive fathers who let then, or had dead fathers and no relative to take his place.
and no matter how prudish these "free" women were, not matter virginity til death or whatever, they were almost ALWAYS socially treated as "loose women".
that was the choice women had in 1920 - don't get married and have your father continue to control your life, don't get married and somehow escape paternal control but be branded "loose" [thereby almost definitely ensuring you'll NEVER get married] or get married and have your husband control your life.
getting the vote in 1920 was AWESOME. but it was JUST the start. the suffragist has several main goals [the Suffragist Movement officially started in the US in 1848]:
1. the right to vote.
2. the right to divorce [women weren't allowed to initiate divorce. this started ending in the 1860, and IIRC the last state to allow women to initiate divorce did so in 1922. but i'm not completely sure of that date, and my google-fu is failing.]
3. the right to keep their children after a divorce
4. the right to own and control property on their own, despite marital status, and without having to go to court to do so
5. the right to birth control and abortion
6. the right to be paid an equal wage for equal work
7. the right to KEEP said wages.
that decade saw the beginnings of further reforms - before the 1860's, if a divorce happened, it was initiated by the husband; before 1960 the only WAY to get a divorce was if your spouse committed a crime and you could prove it [adultry was a favorite, because it was easier to get a court to accept than assult...]. before 1880 the father got the kids. PERIOD. it's why there were so FEW divorces even after women gained the right to initiate divorces in some states. before 1871, if a man beat his wife, it wasn't a crime - and if he killed her, all he had to say was that she "cheated" on him, and it was ruled a "justifiable homocide." before 1936, birth control was ILLEGAL. and it wasn't until the 1970's that laws REQUIRING that there had to be a witness other than the woman herself to charge a man with rape were removed from law-books.
things start changing, at least technically.
but it wasn't until the 1920's that the "technically" became something that actually happened. Courts began to shift how they viewed custody, and custody became something that was supposed to be about "the good of the child." that's when presumptive MATERNAL custody started**** [it took over a decade to spread through all the states.]
while the first laws against "wife beating" were inacted in 1871, it took a FULL FUCKING CENTURY for the courts to take them seriously, and for real help for victims of DV to become available. and for domestic violence to be a legal ground for divorce WITHOUT the judge saying "well he only slapped you around a little, he didn't ABUSE you. no broken bones, right?"
it wasn't until 1936 that the courts decided the federal government could not interfere with doctors providing contraception to their patients - and it wasn't until 1965 that the Supreme Court ruled that State governments couldn't interfere - and it took another 8 years for UNMARRIED persons to have the same right to contraceptives as married people; all were banned under "Comstock Laws" that were intended to prohibit the distribution of "obscene, lewd, and/or lascivious" materials through the mail, including contraceptive devices and information. their EFFECT was to make the selling or giving of birth control or INFORMATION about birth control illegal - while not doing a single fucking thing to stop ACTUAL pornography, so long as one could find a "redeeming value" for it. there was apparantly NO "redeeming value" in birth control, but the Karma Sutra was "art" [i mean, it IS, but it's less fucking "redeemable" than BC!]
we all know abortion was only quasi-legal until the 70s - in SOME places it was legal [though you had to "prove" to a panel of doctors that you "needed" - i.e. deserved - an abortion] but in most states it was completely illegal unless a panel of doctors approved it - in other words, it was ok for RICH women to have abortions, but poor women, not being able to AFFORD doctors and a doctor's panel, weren't allowed legal abortions - leading to a black market and back alley abortions and horror. [historically, abortions have been relatively easy to obtain if one wasn't married - there was generally SOMEONE who knew enough about herbs to help. and FFS, there was a Roman COIN that had, as it's face, the imprint of a now-extinct herb that had been universally known and employed throughout the Empire, that was LITERALLY worth it's weight in gold, and was commonly used. then women gained the vote, but laws were passed making abortion illegal. also prostitution, opium, midwifery, etc.]
the Equal Pay Act of 1963 was supposed to stop pay discrimination based on sex. it's SORT OF worked, in that women's income has moved from 62% of men's earnings in 1970 to, theoretically,
80% in 2004. it's actually about 77%, when one controls for hours worked and etc. there are lots of reasons for this - started at graduation from college [in the theoretical framework] a pair of equally qualified in ALL ways graduates, one male, one female. [same classes, same grades, same internship and eval on it, etc etc] will be hired at the same rate.
one year later, he will be making 10% more than she does.
10 years later, he'll be making 30% or MORE more than her.
why?
men are, over all, promoted more, and more quickly. if there are two equally qualified people up for a promotion, one male, one female, there's a 70% chance it'll be the man promoted. because companies "know" that women will get married, then get pregnant, and then quit. or something.
marriage is a net POSITIVE for men, and a net NEGATIVE for women. a married man will have even MORE of a chance at promoption - he "has a family to take care of". a married woman? well, SHE has a HUSBAND, right? she's not the "real" breadwinner [even if she IS]. the MAN NEEDS the promotion to care for his family, right? whereas the married woman has a husband who is going to be promoted for the same reason.
studies FURTHER show that women who are married and have children are automatically assumed to work less. period. the assumption is that the MOTHER will be the one taking time off work if the kids are sick. married with childen women can work MORE than their co-workers, work HARDER tha their co-workers, and STILL have all their co-workers believe that they aren't working as hard or as much, because "everyone knows" that "being a mother comes first".
and once a woman gets married, she's mommy-tracked.
and on top of that, woe be unto a MAN who takes care of his children! if the couple decide that *HE* is the primary caregiver, or they decide to split it evenly, they're both *screwed*. everytime he takes time off work for the kids, it's "don't you HAVE a wife?" and discrimination from hell.
why?
because A) women are caregivers. period. our society flat out fucking REFUSES to accept a MAN being a caregiver, that's women's work, and B) women are ONLY caregivers. period. our society flat out fucking REFUSES to accept women not WANTING to be caregivers. the assumption is ALWAYS that the woman will give up her career to take care of children - any woman who doesn't do so is "selfish", and any man who takes over the caregiving is "neutered" or worse.
what does this have to do with rape?
it's the SAME ATTITUDE. the whole "all women are good for is fucking and raising kids and cleaning house." the devaluing of women, the insistance on women being primary caregivers, not being promoted at equal rates [which "isn't discrimination" - they HIRED her, after all, and there's NOTHING in the law that says PROMOTIONS have to be evenly applied across the sexes. promotions are based on "merit", and good fucking luck PROVING that you didn't get promoted solely based on your plumbing...] the assumption that any and ALL women WILL get married, and then will be a "secondary" source of income, and WILL have children, and WILL be primary caregiver, is SO deeply fucking ingrained in our cultural psyche that even women who don't want kids EVER end up doing so.
and woe betide a MAN who decides to be the stay-at-home-parent - no one will want to hire him, because he's "proved" that he's "lazy", by "slacking off" as a stay-at-home-parent, because "everyone KNOWS" that being a stay-at-home-parent is EASY, right?
it's hard fucking work. but it's women's work - even when done by a man - so those 120-hour work-weeks as a parent and house-keeper DON'T FUCKING COUNT.
if we can change THAT - accept that the things that are traditionally "women's work" isn't necessarily "women's" at all, and it's fucking HARD! - then we've started down the road to accepting women as PEOPLE, REAL people, with real rights and thoughts and hopes and dreams and ACTUAL FUCKING OWNERSHIP OF THEIR OWN FUCKING BODIES. we'll accept that rape is a REAL crime, and that the person raped is NOT the person at fault [eventually. it won't happen over night] but rather the RAPIST is at fault. once we have a society that values women as much as it values men, a society that accepts that men and women are EQUAL, equally competent, equally employable, equally capable of making ther own decisions, then we're walking the road to getting rid of rape. because right now, the problem is two-fold - people INSIST that only men rape, but it ISN'T "real" rape, because they're doing it because they "need" sex, that it's ONLY about sex, and after all, if she were a GOOD woman she wouldn't have been raped, which somehow proves that it's not rape - AND people believe that women who like sex DESERVE, no, ARE REQUIRED, to be raped as "punishment", because women don't own their own bodies, no, their father's own their bodies, and then their husband's own their bodies, and having sex, ESPECIALLY sex you ENJOY, is a CRIME against the man who owns you, and you DESERVE rape and WORSE, but because you're such a sluttly-slut, you CAN'T be raped, because only women who are "good" can be raped, and being raped PROVES you aren't "good". so there's no such THING as rape, see?
seriously - our laws say otherwise, but most of the people charged with upholding them believe, way back in their reptile brains, that a raped person did something to "deserve" rape, and so it wasn't RAPE, gods no! it was sex you didn't want, that's not RAPE! that any raped person somehow caused it, and it CAN'T be the rapist's fault, because it's NEVER the rapist's fault that the rapist has no self control... because all rapists are men, you know, and men just aren't capable of controlling themselves, they've "evolved" to just take sex. and if women can't stop them from raping them, it's THEIR fault.
men who have been raped are all secretely gay or something, and so are "really" women, and so deserve it.
women who rape men don't exist, because men can't be raped, because all men want all sex all the time.
women who rape women don't exist, because "women can't have sex with women, it's impossible"
trans people can't be raped, because they're always "tricking" people. somehow.
it's all fucking BULLSHIT, but it isn't going to change until SOCIETY changes and accepts rape as a REAL crime, no matter WHO it was committed by, no matter WHO was raped.
it's gonna take another century. but it WILL be worth it.
*i know people this happened to. the person who roofied the victim's drink did it to "punish" the victim for dating the guy that the roofie-giving person wanted. the victim was devasted that her new boyfriend, on their second date, "drugged and raped her." the new boyfriend couldn't understand why his new girlfriend crawled all over him and initiated sex but then accused him of rape, ESPECIALLY when he KNEW she hadn't had anything alcoholic. he'd have gone to jail, and she'd have been fucked up for life, if the roofie-ist hadn't then fucking BRAGGED about it to another person. who told the cops. so SHE went to jail for sexual assult - drugging someone with the intent to have them raped, even if you yourself aren't the one intending to rape them, is STILL sexual assult - and several other charges, including felony possession and felony dispensment-of-drugs, and i think also felony entrapment. the couple went to a LOT of counseling, both seperately and together, and are now married and are [mostly] happy, and if she still has a mortal terror of consuming ANYTHING she didn't make herself, and they LITERALLY sign a "contract" before anything more than kissing takes place, because HE has this mortal terror of hurting her again, that's ok because they're still working on it. she actually bitches sometimes about how he won't have spontaneous sex... but they ARE, slowly-but- surely, recovering.
**I once went on a blind date with a guy who i found a bit creepy-from the get-go [it was the LAST time i went on a blind date. never again!] but the date was ok until the end. when the waiter came with the check, the guy was in the restroom. and i asked the waiter for seperate checks. the guy got back at the same time the waiter got back with the checks. guy first tried to MAKE the waiter put the checks back together [threatened to leave no tip, for one] and the waiter pointed out that seperate checks could still be PAID together, and now that they were seperated the computer system didn't allow for them to be recombined. the guy then tried to take *my* check away. when i said "no, i got this. and stop grabbing me" he got really mad and yelled at me "Just give me the fucking check! NOW!" the waiter then informed him that if he didn't calm down, he'd be kicked out. guy says something to placate the waiter, waits for waiter to leave, the turns to me and says "you aren't getting out of sex just because you pay for yourself."
and let me fucking tell you, i'd NEVER been happier that my stepfather taught me to FIGHT along with beating the fuck out of me. i was able to leave, and not be afraid of this asshole - i was able to say "don't ever fucking contact me again. i'll beat the hell out of you if you bother me again." and i was equally happy that we'd met at the restaraunt, instead of him picking me up; that i'd made it a POLICY to meet elsewhere for blind dates. because i'm pretty positive that that guy? would have tried to rape me if i'd been reliant on him for a ride home, and if i weren't able to project that i DID know how to fight and would fight him tooth and nail if tried to follow me home or something. not 100%, what is? but 98% - his line about how i wasn't going to "get out" of sex tells me that he was an entitled fuck who really, truly believed that i OWED him sex and that he had the right to it no matter WHAT i did, even if he "had" to rape me to get what he "deserved".
*** mostly copied from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Coverture
**** i'll admit that i don't like presumptive paternal custody - i hate it as much as i hate presumptive MATERNAL custody. it should be the function of family courts to determine WHICH parent is going to provide the best care of the child(ren) - BUT ONLY IF THERE IS NO WAY TO HAVE SHARED CUSTODY. presumptive joint custody should be the norm, with sole custody only in cases where one parent is abusive or if the parents live so far from each other joint PHYSICAL custody isn't feasible. and in the latter case, joint custody still applies, except one parent has sole PHYSICAL custody, while the rest is split evenly.