Friend got raped.

[Corsac]

I'm going to get him to go to the police but I know how to talk to people and be a good friends.

And if he doesn't go to the police I live in a small town so I can slander his name around. every one knows every one here.

As much as you're angry for what has happened, you need to let your friend make the choices in how this is dealt with. Going around and shouting about what happened might cause a negative effect for him. Just be there for when he needs that shoulder to cry on and concentrate on keeping him in a stable frame of mind after this event.

[MisterTinkles]

I dont condone this in any way....in fact I believe in "chainsaw enimas" for rapists....

BUT

Seeing as you guys know this asswipe, how he operates, and what he does....I would not call this rape.
Drunk or not, you dont knowingly go to some shitbags house expecting tea and cookies.

If the younger guy is of legal age, then I doubt anyone will do anything about it, because he willingly went to this mans house. If he's underaged, then his parents may have to file for rape.

Sorry this happened, but the young guy went willingly to this douchebags house.

You might get HIM drunk one night and get him into a back alley to meet your "little friend"....


But thats just my opinion....

[Counselor]

Actually I'd say the letters Y E and S. That is consent not saying anything is not consent.

Point taken, well-put!

[ChrisH]

I'd be super pissed off too. That guy is the scum of the earth!!!

[Lalo]

MY RESPONSE TO BOWYN'S POST:
I have posted Bowyn's original words in quotations. My responses are in BOLD.

"Rape and Rapist are loaded words. I'm going to play the Devil's advocate here and not assume right off that this is rape."
I really don't understand this response. Why would you assume that this WASN'T rape? Although it is possible that it wasn't, why would you assume the opposite of what is being reported here by someone with more first hand information? Don't get me wrong, I understand the reluctance to jump to conclusions, but that's not the same thing as going in the other direction.

"Are you absolutely certain that Frank was actually raped, or is Frank just trying to cover his own butt here after allowing himself to go down this road and regretting where it took him? I'm not condoning any of the activity here, however I know 23 year olds are stupid and do stupid things, such as buying minors beer (I did that a lot when I was in my 20's)."

Okay, sexual violation is not just something "stupid". You seem to take offense that the very allegation "escalates" this case in regard to the accused, but have no problem "diminishing" his responsibility. Your case that "23 year olds are stupid and do stupid things" is really a self-defeating argument. On the one hand you allege that a 16 year old might be "trying to cover his own butt", but the 23 year old was just being "stupid"? That doesn't seem like a well-grounded argument.

"Both may have been drunk and things got out of hand... It may never have been the intent of Joe to coerce sex from Frank. Sex is just the unfortunate end to an evening of too many drinks."

Really, this is the one statement of your post which I disagree with the most. Sex is NOT just the unfortunate end to an evening of too many drinks. That is a cop out. I am really tired of people using the defense that "The alcohol made them do it". If you are 23 years old, you get a 16 year old kid drunk, and then have your way with him, you are a predator. At each step of the way, there is a point where you can turn back, yet this guy apparently decided to proceed. That's not just "stupid"; that is calculated behavior. And as far as the "beer goggle" excuse, I also don't buy that. Alcohol doesn't create behavior, it only loosens the moral restrictions that we carry in our own heads.

"If you feel it is remotely possible that Frank egged this on in any way, then you need to drop the Rape word out of this and look at it as a teen who willfully engaged in activities with a fair idea of where things would lead."
Sorry, but even if Frank flirted shamelessly with this guy, consent still has to be able to be given freely. It seems like this story has been reported by Frank as being a case of sexual violation. It really doesn't matter if Frank gave Joe a lap dance prior to the event. At some point, Frank apparently said "No" or he felt that he was unable to say "No". That IS the definition of sexual violation. Whether or not the allegation is true needs to be heard in court. But diminishing the allegation with suggestions that Frank somehow led poor Joe on, is really inappropriate.

"It is a serious accusation and thus far you appear to have only one side of this story."
I agree with you on this point, and really, if this is the primary point of your response then it is quite valid. All sexually related allegations have a highly charged component in our culture and the likelihood of people getting overly involved, emotionally, is extremely likely. So one should be careful before leveling an accusation.

However, from everything that has been posted, which is all that we really have to go on, it appears that Frank was violated by Joe. Going the other route, and leveling blame on Frank is just as, or possibly even more reckless than the original accusation.

I think that playing "Devil's Advocate" is fine, as long as we recognize the difference between doing so and blaming the victim. In the case that was presented on this thread, from everything that has been reported, it appears, and I stress the word "appears" that a sexual violation took place.

Just because the word "rape" is a "loaded word", doesn't mean that it can never be used. It just means that we should always try to temper irresponsible use of the word with an evaluation of what the word means to each of us individually, on an emotional level. When allegations of rape are made though, it is extremely offensive to diminish that allegation outright. Some of the same "excuses" you have presented (or alluded to) in your argument, are ones which have been used by our society repeatedly to devalue women in the same situation (IE. "she dressed too provocatively", "she knew what she was getting into", "It was just because of the alcohol"). My personal opinion is that they are just as inappropriate here. We are looking through a very narrow lens here, so our understanding of the situation is, of course, extremely limited. Granted. But some of the implications in your response, regarding "Frank", seem to inappropriately swing the pendulum way to the other extreme.

This is our first disagreement on the forum- a another milestone! LOL...Okay, maybe I shouldn't make light of it. But hey, we were bound to disagree on something, right?

[Bowyn Aerrow]

Lalo,

Let me try to explain better here.

Truth is a funny thing, we rely either on facts and evidence to arrive at truth, or we rely on a person's word. Humans lie, all the time, most lies are 'innocent' little lies which do little harm, but some lies can do massive damage.

Everyone on this thread has reacted to the Rape word. We all immediately assume that Joe is innocent and did nothing (consented, said yes). And is a victim of some 'monster'.

Yes my gut reaction was vile hatred for the putrid scum that would do this. I have my issues - and knowing that I have my issues thus am seriously biased in such matters, I know to take a deep breath and think real hard about what else could have happened. I have reasons for taking that breath...


Ultimately only two people know what really happened. None of us were there. Like it or not Teens lie - a lot, especially if they think they stand to lose something. I'm not saying that Joe is a liar, I'm saying its a potential that must be considered before leveling accusations as severe as 'rape' and 'rapist' to Frank.

There are also too many cases where 'rape' was declared and the reality was that consent was given and the 'victim' changed their mind about it and called it a "rape".

http://www.theforensicexaminer.com/archive/spring09/15/ gives some interesting 'other side of the coin' perspective. 8-15% of cases (forced rape) are false accusations more or less.


I also recall a gal who attended my group therapies who concocted this horrible story of being a victim, this resulted in destroying her so called 'attacker'. After he plea bargained and was convicted based on that, and after about two years in therapy with us she changed her story.

Understand how that plea bargaining works and how innocent people accept a plea bargain: http://www.google.com/#hl=en&sclient=psy...55&bih=707 Lots of sites discuss how this works.

Yes innocent people will plead guilty, especially with the DA threatening them with a life in prison. If all you get is 6 months time served and a bit of probation if you say you did it, the risk of life in prison is too big of one to 'fight' the accusation.

She declared rape and then found herself having to tell one lie after another lie in order to keep from having her first lie being found out. In the process of covering her own butt and lying to police, judge, D.A., therapists she ended up wrecking a man's life - an innocent man's life.

This situation left a profound impression on me - I know of three other similar cases (personally knew the 'victim') where a 'victim' who was attending group therapy later changed their tale and a the real victim was the accused rapist. This is why I do not allow my gut reaction to immediately define what happened, I know now that there are other sides to stories and that people lie about such things.

In each case the individual was a victim, everyone felt immediately sorry for them and took their side of the story and were out for blood for the 'attacker'. Few people said 'Hold on a second, is this what really happened?' - instead everyone was just willing to believe the 'victim' and convicted the 'attacker' without hesitation.

Between false accusations, and people who will tell huge lies and the way plea bargaining takes place I am most reluctant to jump on the band wagon and convict a person of such a 'crime' immediately.

This isn't a clear case of Joe holding down Frank and raping him. This isn't a case where Joe slipped Frank the date-rape drug and then proceeded to have his way.

We have a kid who goes to a guy's house for what reason?
Alcohol is introduced and that leads to sex.
What was the conversation?
How did we get from point A to point B?
Was Joe open to the whole idea?
Did he say "No" at any point, or 'Stop' or did he say 'yes'?

We don't know, none of us were there and I only listed a few possibilities of what could have taken place other than the main story here.

I'm not laying blame here, I am pointing out other possible scenarios that could have taken place.

This is a serious accusation, and unless Kidd knows for 100% certainty that Joe is 100% truthful, the potential for ruining a guys life is huge. This can't be undone once its done.

I have no idea how the police in NZ handle such situations. Here in the States its all about maximizing prosecutions and a lot of innocent people go to jail. Getting the police involved means what exactly in this case?

As for getting up in Joe's grill and leveling such accusations, I hope to God you have more than a 16 year old's word - some sort of evidence.

Baseball Bats? Stabbing? These are all reactionary hot emotions.


And a Devil's Advocate does the 'yes but...' thing and also raises those other questions which no one wants to hear or consider. http://www.steveseager.com/devils-advoca...on-making/

And that is all I have been doing. I am trying to list other ways that this could have played out to get Kidd to carefully think about what COULD have happened and hopefully not allow his reactionary emotions to cause him to do something he will later regret.

[partisan]

My opinion was when i read this yesterday was not to reply

The way you worded it, you know this character,he himself has tried to get his way with you

He hasn't just jumped out of a bush

Im not going to join the baying mob, for such a complex subject,i know little about the incident,im not protecting the guy, maybe he needs putting away and needs help, but not for me to say I feed

[Lalo]

Lalo,

Let me try to explain better here...
... And that is all I have been doing. I am trying to list other ways that this could have played out to get Kidd to carefully think about what COULD have happened and hopefully not allow his reactionary emotions to cause him to do something he will later regret.

Thanks for that response. I appreciate the fact that you often have a viewpoint that is direct and extremely candid. It is part of your charm. I think that this second post explains your point of view much better than your first post, and I appreciate the thought that went into it.

I too have some personal experience with false accusations. A family member was falsely accused of sexually abusing a child. He was not guilty, the child is now an adult and has denied that anything ever occurred, but the accusation still hangs over his head and his life will never be the same. This all came about due to a custody battle in the midst of a divorce.

So thanks for this very well-reasoned response. I hear what you are saying, and I recognize the validity of it.

Lalo

[Kiid]

[Kiid]

As much as you're angry for what has happened, you need to let your friend make the choices in how this is dealt with. Going around and shouting about what happened might cause a negative effect for him. Just be there for when he needs that shoulder to cry on and concentrate on keeping him in a stable frame of mind after this event.

I'm not the shouting type.