4 ms·

Yes for mugging, but not if you are dealing with a would be rapist. Don't fight back, have your account of the event questioned and doubted... https://www.wash

Yes for mugging, but not if you are dealing with a would be rapist. Don't fight back, have your account of the event questioned and doubted... https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/06/23/why-many-rape-victims-dont-fight-or-yell/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/grade-point/wp/2015/06/2...

vkou 10y ago
Fight back against a rapist, maybe get seriously injured or killed. It's damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't.
- rabboRubble 10y ago
  Yeah, there was a news article in the last couple of weeks about that very thing. Apparently the Baltimore PD have been marking rape reports as unsubstantiated because, at least in one case, the woman didn't fight back under verbal threat. There is something funky with the law either in MD or in Baltimore (don't remember which) that requires the rapist to actually do violence (apparently the unwanted penis isn't enough) for the rape to be counted as a certain type of sexual assault. So all the would be rapist has to say "if you fight back, I'll kill you", the victim believes the rapist and doesn't fight back, and bingo-bango under the law, the rape is unsubstantiated. In at least one case, a serial rapist rapist walked free because he had no prior history of sexual crimes. Because prior reports were unsubstantiated since the prior victims didn't fight back. Tried to find this article without joy. One of the bajillion I come across via RSS.
  - mikeash 10y ago
    My understanding is that this sort of thing is pretty common. Traditionally, "rape" required the victim to resist "to the utmost." Our idea of what constitutes rape has broadened considerably, but the law is sometimes slow to catch up. According to this, five US states still have such requirements in their laws: http://www.womenslawproject.org/resources/Rape%20and%20Sexual%20Assault%20in%20the%20Legal%20System%20FINAL.pdf http://www.womenslawproject.org/resources/Rape%20and%20Sexua... Many others make no mention either way, and I suspect many of them would then fall back to the traditional requirement.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]

vkou 10y ago

Fight back against a rapist, maybe get seriously injured or killed. It's damned-if-you-do, damned-if-you-don't.

rabboRubble 10y ago
Yeah, there was a news article in the last couple of weeks about that very thing. Apparently the Baltimore PD have been marking rape reports as unsubstantiated because, at least in one case, the woman didn't fight back under verbal threat. There is something funky with the law either in MD or in Baltimore (don't remember which) that requires the rapist to actually do violence (apparently the unwanted penis isn't enough) for the rape to be counted as a certain type of sexual assault. So all the would be rapist has to say "if you fight back, I'll kill you", the victim believes the rapist and doesn't fight back, and bingo-bango under the law, the rape is unsubstantiated. In at least one case, a serial rapist rapist walked free because he had no prior history of sexual crimes. Because prior reports were unsubstantiated since the prior victims didn't fight back. Tried to find this article without joy. One of the bajillion I come across via RSS.
- mikeash 10y ago
  My understanding is that this sort of thing is pretty common. Traditionally, "rape" required the victim to resist "to the utmost." Our idea of what constitutes rape has broadened considerably, but the law is sometimes slow to catch up. According to this, five US states still have such requirements in their laws: http://www.womenslawproject.org/resources/Rape%20and%20Sexual%20Assault%20in%20the%20Legal%20System%20FINAL.pdf http://www.womenslawproject.org/resources/Rape%20and%20Sexua... Many others make no mention either way, and I suspect many of them would then fall back to the traditional requirement.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]