Froggy Slayer said:
I don't get why people still use this as a defense for rape. Why do people try to shift the blame onto the women in a situation where the man is still entirely at fault for, you know, having such little self-control that he has to fuck a woman the second that he gets a boner. This is a defense that's still used, and yet, it's one that already assumes that the man is guilty of rape; it simply tries to shift the blame for the crime onto the victim. How do people still believe in this?
Your not getting it and haven't thought it through in terms of how it's used.
The contreversial thing about rape is that it's difficult to prove, and can be used as a weapon. Some girl who goes to bed with some guy and is ashamed, or has to justify it to daddy or a boyfriend or whatever can say "well he raped me" and put tons of pressure on the guy involved whether he did any such thing or not.
The whole "Provocative Clothing" defense usually comes up in cases where a guy is accused of a rape, but is claiming it was consentual sex. Typically involving a counter claim that the woman in question is acting out of after the fact shame, or due to some ambigious case involving intoxication or whatever. The idea being that if a girl is dressing sexy and showing off the goods, she's looking to make a connection so to speak. In of itself this means nothing, but combined with other things it can become a big deal.
It's like this, you walk into a singles bar looking to get laid, wearing your ultra tight bulge showing jeans and muscle shirt. You run into some girl with a dress slit up the side and showing cleavage down to her navel, you flirt, have a bunch of drinks, and then go somewhere and have sex. A few days later you get accused of rape. Turns out she had a boyfriend, decided after the fact this was a bad idea for whatever reason, and since it was witnessed she was with you and he knows about the sex, she is claiming you raped her either by force, or by taking advantage of her due to intoxication since you were drinking together.
In that case, her mode of dress, location (singles bar), and the fact that she was drinking and flirting with you are all going to contribute to the case, in projecting reasonable doubt onto the accusation that your guilty of rape. Understand in the US at least the criteria is "A reasonable doubt" and cases are fought that way, it's not about definitive proof of innocence, indeed you don't even need to prove you ARE innocent since your presumed to be that way, those bringing the charges have the burden of proving you guilty.
When the issue of rape comes up people usually have straightforward images in their mind, reality is rarely that cut and dry, and honestly I think the system as it is now tends to favor women and sympathy towards them a little too much. It's far too easy for a woman who does something willingly to claim rape after the fact, and there are tons of reasons why you see that kind of thing happen.
A lot of people hate me for it, but I'm pretty much of the opinion that unless there are signs of actual forced sexual contact (ie holding someone down and forcing yourself on them) such cases should hold little legal validity, and should rarely go to court. Contreversial, but in a system where innocence is presumed, it's a subject where emotions get too easily involved, and I have problems with any kind of case where someone can be potentially convicted with little or no physical evidence of a crime, especially by a jury for emotional reasons. I've felt that we need standards for physical trauma, and things like the so called "closed door doctrine" to be put into law, with such trials being encouraged to be heard before a Judge instead of a Jury (even if it should remain the defendants perrogative) since a Judge is more likely to make a more professional judgement and be under closer review after the fact.
Don't get the impression I'm defending rapists, that's not the point per se, it's simply that I feel handling this kind of thing fairly remains a great blind spot in our legal system. The very fact that someone can ask WHY a mode of dress matters to a case of this sort illustrates the problem in my mind. The same applies to things like a pattern of promiscious behavior, and similar things that have people going "W T F" when they shouldn't, if you were an innocent defendant all of this would matter to you.
I'll even go so far as to say that with some of the messed up things people get up to today, even physical trauma doesn't mean all that much. When people play bondage and S&M games, and awarness of that kind of stuff increases, the types of bruises and such rapidly matter. Today some girl comes in with two black eyes, rope burn, cigarette burns, and whip marks all over her, that doesn't nessicarly mean forced sex, it might come down to "how do I justify this to daddy/my boyfriend/co-workers, since I wasn't expecting to be so messed up afterwards" claiming you were raped gets sympathy, obvious signs you liked to be tied up and tortured during sex (or experimented with it) can get you labeled a freak or even fired for reasons of "company image".
There are all kinds of scenarios out there, and remember, Innocent until proven guilty is supposed to be the #1 rule of our law enforcement system. Any bit of reasonable doubt you can put on accustions of guilt is very important.
