Paul (#8) wrote:
I think that “blame” can be shared. I’m inclined to believe that someone who willingly goes to someone else’s apartment, into his bedroom (or invites him into hers), disrobes, gets into bed, and invites the other into bed, willingly engages in fondling, and then says “No” to sexual penetration, is a tease.What Paul is advocating is viewing certain consensual actions of women as equal to the sexual violence of men. Any girl or woman he views as a tease is as bad as the men he acknowledges as rapists.
The law says that anything after “No” is rape. To my mind, this rape isn’t in the same league as forcing someone to engage in sexual intercourse.
In the first example, I would assign much responsibility to the woman - so much so that I would be unlikely to vote for conviction. The second example is the opposite: perpetrator bears entire responsibility.
The tougher cases - for which some would “blame the victim”: being out late at night, in the wrong neighborhood, wearing immodest clothing, willingly ingesting alcohol or drugs, making poor choices re “situations/circumstances/places/people” etc.
Unfortunately, the law is binary: either rape occurred, or it didn’t. The perpetrator is either guilty or not guilty. He can’t be “a little bit” or “mostly” guilty. The sex was either consensual, or it wasn’t. Not “mostly” or “a little.”
Once he labels a woman as a tease a man forcing her to engage in sexual intercourse is no longer in the league with a man who forces someone to engage in sexual intercourse. The same violence which Paul condemns as a felony becomes non-criminal.
This thinking clearly provides a road map for how a man can rape and have men like Paul be their accomplices in getting away with that crime.
Rapists and their attorneys love people like Paul. The defense attorney may need nothing more than the insinuation that the victim was a tease to get jurors like Paul to dismiss the evidence proving the defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as just so much noise.
If Paul's thinking is valid then it must be wrong that we have a binary system for all crimes including murder. If Paul walks in a good neighborhood during the day then the man who murders him from across the street without warning is fully at fault for shooting Paul to death.
If, however, Paul is in a bad neighborhood and swears at a mugger rather than immediately handing over his wallet then Paul is mostly at fault for being shot to death. The man who shot him with the intent to kill should not be convicted. Paul's logic tells us so.
Yet unlike the rapists Paul excuses, Paul most likely understands that both of these murderers are a danger to others. Paul's logic prevents him from viewing how the acquittal of certain rapists puts all those Paul views as blameless at greater risk of being raped. In Paul's worldview men who rape someone labeled as a tease can never be the same men who rape children or adults who did everything Paul believes they should do.
There is no evidence to support this worldview so when Paul would vote to acquit men on trial for rape who have been proven to have committed rape Paul has no way of knowing how many people he views as innocent will be subsequently raped by those rapists.
In this scenario would Paul be willing to assign as much responsibility to himself as to all of the rapists Paul would not convict who are serial rapists for all their rapes against those he doesn't blame? He clearly believes that non-rapists can equally share the responsibility for rape. If that belief is good enough for rape victims it must be good enough for men like Paul who would acquit known rapists.
Paul would most likely have voted to acquit a man who raped a woman he knew who agreed to be with him in his car and Paul's bias would prevent him from imagining that the same man could later abduct, rape and murder a Brigham Young University student.
All Paul sees is a major fault in viewing all rapists as guilty of rape because of Paul's harsh opinion of many rape victims.