When sex with your consenting spouse can become rape

The lack of anyone intervening is extremely disconcerting (to say the least).

I still think, though, that if you say there were 3 times the number of incidents than there were videos (3) you still have roughly 10 incidents. Also, of those 10 incidents how many were something less felonious, like fondling a passed out female, etc. I’m not saying that is ok, but it is different than outright rape. But just for the purpose of our number crunching let’s assume all 10 incidents as being very bad. Now we assume 10 people per incident, which is probably a significant overstatement of how many “bad” people were involved in each incident (some bystanders who failed to intervene, for example, might have done so not because they are bad people, but because they were afraid). Even with those very generous assumptions you still get only 100 out of 100,000 people who were involved in something untoward.

Don’t get me wrong, I think there is a problem with the evolution of society, and especially our youth, but I still think (hope?) that the truly bad people (husbands who would rape a wife, etc) are a small percentage of society.

Do you think it a large enough percentage to be worthy of concern? And trying to protect those at risk?

I’ve been on these “sex” threads since November and thinking about rape culture daily. Soon I’m going to have to take a break. It doesn’t impact me personally. I don’t have to think about it.

Here’s a really barely on topic observation: Margaret Atwood’s recent short story collection, Stone Mattress deals with many of the issues discussed here. In one story, the younger generation decides the baby boomers have had all the time they deserve. I really like Atwood. Wouldn’t it be fun to be drinking with her as the lights go off in all the nursing homes?

TV4, you missed the other part of the quote. Here’s the whole quote:

The video in question is a video of a gang rape in public in broad daylight, where no one intervene though there were hundreds of bystanders.

First of all, hundreds of people were involved in just the one video: they watched a gang rape and didn’t intervene. But secondly, if we’re just counting perpetrators, by your arithmetic we have 100 people who committed sexual assault AND who happened to be videoed AND for which the video was brought to the police. But we’re not interested in the number of people unlucky enough to be on videos that the police saw; we’re interested in all the sexual assaults, whether videoed or not. Do you think the assaults on videotape are a small percentage or a big percentage of all assaults?

People who would gang rape in public are not the only assaulters, just the most brazen assaulters.

Oh, heck yes. I sure hope I didn’t imply otherwise.

@Cardinal Fang I obviously didn’t miss that part of the quote or I wouldn’t have said that I was multiplying by 3 to account for the ones that stayed secret.

Also, hundreds were not involved in the FL incident. Have you seen the video? I just did, and there are hundreds of people on the beach but they are standing around talking in groups and have no clue what is going on.

The original quote from the Sheriff said that hundreds of witnesses might have seen the incident. That became “hundreds of people were involved”, which then became “hundreds of people were within 10 feet of the rape and failed to intervene”.

With the video blurred it was also hard to tell exactly what happened, but it almost looked like the girl was standing up and the guys must have penetrated her while standing. If that was the case I can see why nobody had a clue what was going on.

ETA- even if she was sitting, like some reports said, how are people supposed to know whether she was a willing participant or not if they were not right in front of her.

The question we’re concerned with is not, “How many gang rapes occurred in public on the beach?” but “How many sexual assaults occurred in the town?” We’re wondering how many guys are assaulters, not how many guys are assaulters who are so brazen that they will gang rape in public in daylight. We want to count the rapes in darkness, the rapes inside as well as the rapes outside, the single perpetrator rapes (only counting those events that you and I would agree were assaults; I don’t want to get into an argument about borderline cases).

Multiplying by 3 instead of 30 or 300 is ridiculous. You can’t possibly think that of all the sexual assaults, fully a third of them (1) occurred in public outside AND (2) were videoed AND (3) in videos that reached the police. If you think that, you think that criminals are more likely to commit crimes in public than in private. Yeah, right.

If the partiers on the beach can’t imagine a rape happening, they won’t see it. Same thing in a nursing home. imho.

It is extremely difficult to see what is outside our personal experience and comfort zone. imho.

I should add that even the people who were right in front of the victim might have had no idea that she was being raped. They probably thought she was a willing participant. She wasn’t passed out. She didn’t object. She never even filed charges. Those things are to be expected if she was drugged, which it appears she was. But that also means that there was probably no way for those around her to know that she wasn’t just having public sex, and no way for 99.9% of the people on that beach to know that anything was happening.

@Cardinal Fang I agree in post 425 with your first paragraph.

The 2nd paragraph is more nuanced. You don’t need all 3 things that you listed. Events that occurred outside are usually going to be reported (unless like in this case they are so unusual that people didn’t know what happened). I also think that nowdays many crimes are videotaped.

Why are you saying this case was so unusual? You contend that people didn’t report a gang rape in public because they didn’t realize what was going on. If that’s so, then we should expect that any other rape in public would get have the same result-- people wouldn’t realize what was going on (or were incurious and didn’t care) and the rape was not public.

This gang rape was never reported to the local police by any bystander. It only became public because police in Troy, Alabama, were investigating an unrelated shooting, and happened to come upon this video. Nobody was looking for this video. They just happened on it.

Suppose you turn over some rocks because you dropped your keys, and you discover bugs under some of the rocks. Which do you think?

(A)I have found all the bugs in the area. They’re under the rocks I just happened to turn over.

(B) I found some bugs under the rocks I turned over. There are lots of rocks in this area that I didn’t turn over. I bet some of those rocks have bugs under them too.

The problem I had with CF’s “men who will do it if they can get away with it” statement was that she said they were a substantial minority, if not majority. I don’t think there are any studies that indicate it is a majority.

Regarding the sexual assault on the beach video, you all keep talking about how no one intervened, which I completely agree is appalling. But you blame it solely on the males. I’ve seen part of that video, and it looked to me like at least half of those standing around were female. What were THEY doing? What kind of wives are THEY going to make?

I’ve seen that video and there are so many blurred parts that I can’t tell who can see what. Is there a video with less blurring??

There is evidence that in societies where there is no such thing as marital rape, the majority of men have sex with their wives when the wives don’t want to have sex, because they can.

But if you’re quibbling about whether it’s a majority of men would have sex with women who don’t want to have sex, if they could get away with it, or it’s only a substantial minority, you’ve already lost the discussion. Your original claim was that there was “an extremely remote risk” that a guy in a position to have sex with his comatose wife would do it. I say the risk is not “extremely remote” that a man with an impaired spouse would have sex with her either when she was clearly not liking it, or when she was so impaired that she had no idea what was going on, if we allow spouses to decide without let or hindrance. If we let them, there will be guys who believe that she is his wife and he has the right to have sex with her, even though she in her dementia thinks he is a stranger raping her.

In the Rayhons case, the daughters brought their concerns to the facility. The doctor who examined Mrs. Rayhons, and the facility director, determined that in her condition, she couldn’t consent to sex. Eventually it came to a trial. If I had been on the jury, I probably would have acquitted, even though I would have believed that it was jury nullification.

But from that, I certainly don’t want to draw the conclusion that it is never proper for doctors and care facilities to determine whether their charges are able to have sex. Rather, I think we should realize what happened here. The doctor and the care facility used their best judgment, as I think they do in a lot of cases, to see whether a resident who was having sex was being abused. They made what they thought was an honest appraisal in good faith. And in this particular case, they used the wrong rules.

It’s understandable, at least to me, that the care facility would think that consent at the time is required for sex. This is not some bizarre notion; this is the common understanding. If we want the next care facility to make a better decision, we need to give them better rules. Instead of using the cognitive capacity test they used, the caregivers should have examined the public interactions between husband and wife, and how Mrs. Rayhons seem to react at times when her husband was affectionate with her. If they had discovered, as they did not, that she didn’t recognize her husband and regarded him as a stranger, or if she seemed, as she did not, upset by him, then they could have made a correct decision that sex between them was no longer a possibility.

Let’s not throw the baby out with the bathwater here. Sex in nursing homes is common, and abusive sex, often initiated by impaired residents, is not uncommon. The nursing homes still need to try to prevent the abuse. They need to protect their vulnerable residents.

I don’t see any poster using gendered words to describe the bystanders.

I expect that a “stereotypical rape” in public would get reported immediately. I would guess that most daytime copulations would not get reported as rape if the woman didn’t look like they were in any way being forced. However, I do not believe that there is even a small minority of men who rape a woman in broad daylight in the midst of a crowd.

When you were young (heck, even now), if you were at a rock concert and you saw a couple copulating a couple of rows behind you and the woman was not indicating that she was in trouble, that she just looked very drunk (or high), would you report a rape? How about in a movie theater in the back row? I know I wouldn’t. It just wouldn’t enter my mind that she was being raped if she wasn’t showing signs of distress.

If you’d asked me beforehand, how many guys will gang rape a woman in broad daylight in a crowd, I would have guessed zero. And if you’d asked me, if some guys tried to gang rape a woman in broad daylight in a crowd, whether at least one of the bystanders close by would call the police, I would have said yes.

And yet, here we have at least one case where guys were gang-raping a woman in public, in full view of at least the some of the crowd, nobody called the police, and it only came to light by chance. Now we know that you can gang-rape someone in public and nobody will call the police. How many other rapes were there, with witnesses, where the witnesses didn’t call the police? How many more where there were no witnesses?

How big is this iceberg anyway?

I don’t know who you think you are answering, but it isn’t my post. Since I very clearly stated that there does indeed need to be a process of that sort…but a much better one than used in this case.

The comments about “what kind of husbands will they be” weren’t gendered?

I think your above statement (#437) is a good summation of how many of us think about this case. I think the one BIG problem that is throwing everyone off is the fact that she was (allegedly) drugged. Date rape drugs supposedly leave the victim capable of functioning physically, but pliable and compliant. This is very much like a very drunk person acts.

I wouldn’t doubt that she was so drunk (instead of drugged) that she doesn’t remember the incident. My guess, though, is drugged. Anyway, I’ve seen several people in the act in public that I just assumed were consenting adults because nobody was asking for help. I didn’t call the cops.

Because most of us can’t conceive of doing this, or have any experience with drugged people, or have researched it, I think we fail to realize that the people standing 5 feet away probably thought she was just an exhibitionist.

Of course I would change my opinion if I found out that she was completely inert and lying down, and that 3 men took turns pulling down their pants and violating her. If one or two just groped her while sitting on her lap, or did it standing up where it might have looked like they were dancing, then I can understand people not knowing (or realizing). I wish we knew the facts.