Would this villain have to use drugs for this crime? (sexual violence warning) - Page 2


Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 50

Thread: Would this villain have to use drugs for this crime? (sexual violence warning)

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
    Oh okay, one ready told me that since the rape victim is a cop, the police would take it much more seriously if it's a fellow officer that got raped, compared to a civilian if he's right on that.
    I mean, they might, but the law is the law and a woman having sex with a man who is old enough to be having sex, regardless of circumstances, isn't something that legally falls under rape. If the male is underage, that's statutory rape, but that's not what you are describing.

    There could be other things you could include that would make it some form of sexual assault, but it would be tough to prove. It's often hard enough for women to prove rape and in women's case there's the advantage of trauma, plus other physical considerations.

    I recommend you include some form of torture to the scene. Gagging, etc would fall under that, but since she is angry anyway, you could include her inflicting all manner of physical pain to him, which would both make this far more compelling as a crime and also make the scene more interesting and believable. But just having her drug him and force him into a random act of intercourse not only doesn't seem believable as a trigger for a major investigation by a real-life police department, but just as importantly doesn't really fit the modus operandi of the character as you have described her: Angry people who want to inflict sexual revenge on somebody don't just make illicit love to them painlessly. They want to hurt them. Sure, have her put his penis inside her if it's important to you, but there's got to be something more compelling, more savage, less erotic than just the 'rape'.

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyscars View Post
    I mean, they might, but the law is the law and a woman having sex with a man who is old enough to be having sex, regardless of circumstances, isn't something that legally falls under rape. If the male is underage, that's statutory rape, but that's not what you are describing.

    There could be other things you could include that would make it some form of sexual assault, but it would be tough to prove. It's often hard enough for women to prove rape and in women's case there's the advantage of trauma, plus other physical considerations.

    I recommend you include some form of torture to the scene. Gagging, etc would fall under that, but since she is angry anyway, you could include her inflicting all manner of physical pain to him, which would both make this far more compelling as a crime and also make the scene more interesting and believable. But just having her drug him and force him into a random act of intercourse not only doesn't seem believable as a trigger for a major investigation by a real-life police department, but just as importantly doesn't really fit the modus operandi of the character as you have described her: Angry people who want to inflict sexual revenge on somebody don't just make illicit love to them painlessly. They want to hurt them. Sure, have her put his penis inside her if it's important to you, but there's got to be something more compelling, more savage, less erotic than just the 'rape'.
    Oh okay, I thought she was inflicting psychological pain and revenge and that was enough. Do you think it comes off as more erotic than it should. I don't want it that way for sure. However, I want her to get away with it, at least for now in the story, so if she can get away with it, than that's good, but I was told that if a cop says he was taken captive against his will and sexually assaulted, and has drugs in his system, than the police would take it very seriously as it would look bad if they did not for one of their own officers, if that's true.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
    Oh okay, I thought she was inflicting psychological pain and revenge and that was enough. Do you think it comes off as more erotic than it should. I don't want it that way for sure. However, I want her to get away with it, at least for now in the story, so if she can get away with it, than that's good, but I was told that if a cop says he was taken captive against his will and sexually assaulted, and has drugs in his system, than the police would take it very seriously as it would look bad if they did not for one of their own officers, if that's true.
    Psychological pain and revenge are important concepts. But they aren't inherently illegal. Police care about crimes. The whole reason the rape definition has to exist, and has to include penetration of the victim, is because without penetration proving the crime is far more difficult and therefore there are degrees and distinctions between different types of 'sexual assault'.

    Now, if the police take an interest outside of a professional capacity, that's believable, but then you would need to make it clear that's what it was. Having them seek warrants, etc on the basis of this 'crime' would not happen, not least because warrants require a signature from an impartial party.

    Drugs could make it more legally of interest, sure. But what drugs? Again, you would probably have to factor in a fair amount of skepticism for this to work. If an average guy told another average guy he got drugged and raped, most average guys may or may not take that seriously, but even if they did take it seriously, they would presumably have a lot of questions for the assaulted man regarding how this happened.

    For instance, where is she drugging him? If it's in a public place -- a bar -- then you have to explain how she then got him back to her apartment or wherever the assault took place without anybody noticing, because if he walked himself there suddenly we have to be skeptical as to whether this was actually a kidnapping, whether the sex was consensual. Most women are physically incapable of forcing most men to do anything, let alone one who is drugged and non-compliant. Most police officers are pretty big guys with some degree of common sense. So, the simple logistics of how this all unfolds seems -- on its face -- dubious.

    I don't buy the idea of her 'psychologically' forcing him to be kidnapped, and I doubt she held him at gunpoint. Just doesn't seem to match my experiences. And even if she did, most ordinary people would likely see a drunk or drugged man, a police officer, being compelled back to a woman's home as being less vulnerable than vice-versa. So, again, you have to somehow make him vulnerable (and sympathetic) without upsetting credibility and while making him seem like not-an-idiot for getting himself into a position where this woman could do these things.

    It all sounds pretty nonsensical, to be honest.

    But it doesn't have to be. And, again, this isn't a moral argument about rape, but it is about perceptions and credibility, specifically in the context of how most ordinary cops would view a sex attack they did not witness and which falls outside the typical profile and behavior of attack/victim. If it sounds ludicrous, chances are they won't believe him -- plenty of women don't get believed, many hundreds of rape cases each year fall apart on the basis of 'this doesn't seem plausible', and that's women -- and your intention is for them to launch an investigation, which is something that doesn't happen because Greg comes into the office with a story. This is a cop. A cop who is somehow being drugged and raped by a woman who let him go and vanished. It's going to be a lot for his police colleagues to digest these simple facts, let alone believe him sufficiently to take a 'police interest' in what happened.

    Bottom line: If they're going to actually investigate it as police, you probably need to make it a little more powerful and hard-hitting than just 'she drugged him and kidnapped him and had sex with him and then ran away'. Because I'm calling bullshit. That isn't something that happens, and you're certainly not giving me any reason on which to trust that this is a credible scenario that could happen. As it stands, I don't think you have thought it through.

    But best of luck figuring it out.
    Last edited by luckyscars; January 12th, 2020 at 09:54 AM.

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyscars View Post
    Psychological pain and revenge are important concepts. But they aren't inherently illegal. Police care about crimes. The whole reason the rape definition has to exist, and has to include penetration of the victim, is because without penetration proving the crime is far more difficult and therefore there are degrees and distinctions between different types of 'sexual assault'.

    Now, if the police take an interest outside of a professional capacity, that's believable, but then you would need to make it clear that's what it was. Having them seek warrants, etc on the basis of this 'crime' would not happen, not least because warrants require a signature from an impartial party.

    Drugs could make it more legally of interest, sure. But what drugs? Again, you would probably have to factor in a fair amount of skepticism for this to work. If an average guy told another average guy he got drugged and raped, most average guys may or may not take that seriously, but even if they did take it seriously, they would presumably have a lot of questions for the assaulted man regarding how this happened.

    For instance, where is she drugging him? If it's in a public place -- a bar -- then you have to explain how she then got him back to her apartment or wherever the assault took place without anybody noticing, because if he walked himself there suddenly we have to be skeptical as to whether this was actually a kidnapping, whether the sex was consensual. Most women are physically incapable of forcing most men to do anything, let alone one who is drugged and non-compliant. Most police officers are pretty big guys with some degree of common sense. So, the simple logistics of how this all unfolds seems -- on its face -- dubious.

    I don't buy the idea of her 'psychologically' forcing him to be kidnapped, and I doubt she held him at gunpoint. Just doesn't seem to match my experiences. And even if she did, most ordinary people would likely see a drunk or drugged man, a police officer, being compelled back to a woman's home as being less vulnerable than vice-versa. So, again, you have to somehow make him vulnerable (and sympathetic) without upsetting credibility and while making him seem like not-an-idiot for getting himself into a position where this woman could do these things.

    It all sounds pretty nonsensical, to be honest.

    But it doesn't have to be. And, again, this isn't a moral argument about rape, but it is about perceptions and credibility, specifically in the context of how most ordinary cops would view a sex attack they did not witness and which falls outside the typical profile and behavior of attack/victim. If it sounds ludicrous, chances are they won't believe him -- plenty of women don't get believed, many hundreds of rape cases each year fall apart on the basis of 'this doesn't seem plausible', and that's women -- and your intention is for them to launch an investigation, which is something that doesn't happen because Greg comes into the office with a story. This is a cop. A cop who is somehow being drugged and raped by a woman who let him go and vanished. It's going to be a lot for his police colleagues to digest these simple facts, let alone believe him sufficiently to take a 'police interest' in what happened.

    Bottom line: If they're going to actually investigate it as police, you probably need to make it a little more powerful and hard-hitting than just 'she drugged him and kidnapped him and had sex with him and then ran away'. Because I'm calling bullshit. That isn't something that happens, and you're certainly not giving me any reason on which to trust that this is a credible scenario that could happen. As it stands, I don't think you have thought it through.

    But best of luck figuring it out.
    Oh okay thanks. I used the wrong terminology then. Perhaps I meant sexual assault then. So he would want to report her for sexual assault then.

    But what can I do to write so that he gets himself into this position without coming off as too much of an idiot like you said? He doesn't have to be drugged in bar. It could be in a private place like a house for example. Or if she were to take him at gunpoint, what can I do to write it so that it's more plausible then? When you say you doubt she held him at gunpoint, if you want someone to comply isn't a gun the best weapon to get a person to do so?

    As for calling BS on the villain, I would have to make her a unique villain for sure that is doing something that may not be done, but what can I do to make her more convincing for this type of crime then?

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by luckyscars View Post
    Here's a slight problem for you to chew on: In general, women cannot legally rape men.
    Perhaps in some jurisdictions, but in the U.S., there has been a recent legal change -- and an important one, I think, because legally or not, of course women can rape men.

    https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa...efinition-rape

    A relevant quotation:

    “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
    For the first time ever, the new definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men. It also recognizes that rape with an object can be as traumatic as penile/vaginal rape. This definition also includes instances in which the victim is unable to give consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity. Furthermore, because many rapes are facilitated by drugs or alcohol, the new definition recognizes that a victim can be incapacitated and thus unable to consent because of ingestion of drugs or alcohol. Similarly, a victim may be legally incapable of consent because of age. The ability of the victim to give consent must be determined in accordance with individual state statutes. Physical resistance is not required on the part of the victim to demonstrate lack of consent.

  6. #16
    Oh okay I see. Well for my story, it's not the legal 'name' of the crime that matters, but how the villain can get away with it.

  7. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by R. A. Busby View Post
    Perhaps in some jurisdictions, but in the U.S., there has been a recent legal change -- and an important one, I think, because legally or not, of course women can rape men.

    https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa...efinition-rape

    A relevant quotation:
    “The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.”
    For the first time ever, the new definition includes any gender of victim and perpetrator, not just women being raped by men. It also recognizes that rape with an object can be as traumatic as penile/vaginal rape. This definition also includes instances in which the victim is unable to give consent because of temporary or permanent mental or physical incapacity. Furthermore, because many rapes are facilitated by drugs or alcohol, the new definition recognizes that a victim can be incapacitated and thus unable to consent because of ingestion of drugs or alcohol. Similarly, a victim may be legally incapable of consent because of age. The ability of the victim to give consent must be determined in accordance with individual state statutes. Physical resistance is not required on the part of the victim to demonstrate lack of consent.
    That is why I said 'in general'.

    I am also based in the U.S, by the way, and a former lawyer. And I am not, for the record, saying women can't generally rape men in any sense other than under the definition of the law. Personal feelings are not relevant: If the OP wasn't writing a book about law enforcement, I wouldn't have mentioned it.

    (1) The consent issue, particularly as it relates to being under the influence of alcohol or drugs, is important and interesting and, in my opinion, long overdue...but as long as the penetrative aspect exists as a condition for rape (as distinct from other sexual crimes) the consent issue is not relevant to deciding if the man in question was raped by a woman. If she didn't stick a dildo or a zucchini or an electric toothbrush up his ass, under the definition of the law she most likely did not rape him, no matter how drugged or unwilling he was.

    (2) Yes, it is nevertheless possible to construct a scenario where a woman rapes a man, but as the definition still includes penetration by the alleged rapist that immediately makes it much more difficult (it would in almost every conceivable case require the presence of an object, and an object that is physically capable of penetrating the orifice).

    (3) Furthermore, the requirement for an object by the hypothetical woman-rapist means that many of the usual scenarios in which a lot of rapes occur would be difficult to construct. She would have to have the object available, which would probably require some degree of premeditation (it's not like phallic objects are as readily available as penises), which makes the act a good deal more complicated to execute. Most rapes are not pre-planned in any real sense, so we have a credibility issue with the idea. Not to mention the obvious fact that assaulting somebody's rectal passage with a sharpie is going to be generally less appealing to most people (I will allow, not all!) than engaging them with an actual penis.

    (4) Added to that the continuing issues of stigma against male rape victims; the reality that many people (and it is people who work in law enforcement and sit on juries) do not take the possibility of physically-capable men being sexually molested by women very seriously, and prosecuting rape here in absence of a good amount of substantiating evidence and/or witnesses, would be a difficult sell to most D.A's.

    ^Again, I am speaking in general, pragmatic terms. We all know most police departments don't investigate crimes (or don't fully investigate them) if they don't see either a clear route to prosecution, a public interest, or both. It's a resources issue. It's also a PR issue -- given the need for reelection for those who call the shots. This is really the same basic calculation that also means I can't expect the local C.S.I to get out the forensics team for the time I got jumped by some kid for my wallet -- that calculation being that it's just not something they (the police) view as important. They view it as petty crime/mischief/delinquency (which it was) and were happy to make the report and generally go through the motions...but that's all. There was no question they were actually going to do anything about it. Mulder & Scully weren't coming. It didn't necessarily matter how scared/depressed/angry I was about my wallet, just like it doesn't matter how scared/depressed/angry the male victim here might be.

    So, in this case we are talking about one guy who ends up unharmed afterwards. There's little cultural understanding of the impact of a woman 'raping' a grown man. There's no public push for women rapists to be hauled in front of court. There's no common outrage on this issue. This for the simple fact that it happens extremely rarely compared to men raping women, and the power dynamics in play, the physical ramifications, and the psychological measurables of a woman assaulting a man are just not considered very comparable. In other words, rape remains overwhelmingly a crime perpetrated by men.

    Last thing: It is important not to conflate a change in legal definition with a change in legal outcome. Often definitions change for political reasons, or to enable action to be taken and resources allocated in ways that are not obvious. For example, dispensing with gender as part of the definition of rape allows for the closure of loopholes that might have previously effected members of the LGBTQ+ community (trans women and trans men are often the victims of sexual violence for example) and for improving safeguards in places where same-sex rape is more common, such as correctional facilities and other institutions. It doesn't necessarily mean better protection for able-bodied adult men in public life.
    Last edited by luckyscars; January 13th, 2020 at 05:59 AM.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
    Oh okay I see. Well for my story, it's not the legal 'name' of the crime that matters, but how the villain can get away with it.
    Well gee, that makes no sense. You are talking about police officers taking action on a crime or 'crime'. What do you mean it's not the legal name of the crime that matters? Do you think cops get to choose what they investigate and why on the tax payer's dime?

    This is what I mean about research. You talk about this like it's supposed to be some sort of procedural and fixate on details and believability, and then decide you don't actually care about any of those things. Why are the cops investigating a crime which isn't legally definable?

    If the events in question are not a crime under the laws of wherever your story is set, there's nothing for them to 'get away' with.

  9. #19
    Sorry if I wasn't explaining enough. What I mean is, is that it doesn't matter if the crime is called rape or sexual assault. Perhaps I used the wrong term, 'rape'. If it's sexual assault than I should have said that. But the crime would be sexual assault then, wouldn't it? So that would the the crime that the police take action on, and the story would still be the same, with one change being the name of the crime.

    As for her pre-meditating it, is this bad, or really that implausible, because the more she pre-plans the crime, the more she can get away with it, because she comes up with more of a plan then, doesn't she?

    Here's the problem with not shooting it at a flat angle. If I do it at a more diagonal angle, one of the hands is more blocked, by the framing then. So how do I show that hand, if I do not shoot more flat?

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by ironpony View Post
    Sorry if I wasn't explaining enough. What I mean is, is that it doesn't matter if the crime is called rape or sexual assault. Perhaps I used the wrong term, 'rape'. If it's sexual assault than I should have said that. But the crime would be sexual assault then, wouldn't it? So that would the the crime that the police take action on, and the story would still be the same, with one change being the name of the crime.
    This is where your lack-of-research (I will refrain from using the term 'ignorance') regarding the law comes in because you are treating rape and sexual assault as two different things when rape is actually a type of sexual assault, along with others such as groping.

    Additionally, as sexual assault (and most crime) falls under state and not federal jurisdiction, and the scenario in your story would certainly be state-enforced, the terminology used, the definition of 'what counts', and the response by law enforcement would differ depending on the state law. So, the place you should probably start for researching purposes is, what state is this story set in?

    Be aware there are many different types of 'rape' with many different penalties. For example, the victim being drugged first ('date rape') typically carries a less harsh punishment than rape committed under threat of violence. This is because most jurisdictions have the view that a rape committed using drugs to incapacitate the victim, while still a pretty severe felony, is nonetheless not as severe than the same assault being committed, say, at gunpoint.

    On the other hand, both would typically be more harshly punished (and prosecuted differently) than the statutory rape involved in otherwise consensual sex between, say, a nineteen year old and a sixteen year old (which is only statutory rape because the sixteen year old is below the age of consent.

    On the other, other hand: Statutory rape can be viewed as incredibly serious if it involves sex between, say, a forty year old man and a five year old girl -- most states (and the federal government, when the crime is being enforced by the federal government, which it occasionally is -- such as if the perpetrator is in the military or whatever) distinguish between a teenager who happens to be below the age of consent and child sexual abuse. Also in most jurisdictions there are numerous exemptions and mitigating or aggravating circumstances with different forms of illicit sexual conduct, ranging from mitigating factors, such as the 'Romeo & Juliet Claus', to ones that make the rape-in-question far more worse, such as incest, or lasting injuries and disabilities sustained by the victim.

    I am saying all this not because it's relevant to your scenario, but to demonstrate that if you want this to be accurate and incorporating actual legal theory as opposed to made-up law, you HAVE to make sure you identify exactly what the police are investigating and why, and then somehow connect that with all the other things that make the story tick. Otherwise, you are completely welcome to mishandle legal concepts, terminology, and procedure to your hearts content. However I would caution that with a subject such as rape that may be a risk. People don't tend to respond well to writers who ride roughshod over the truth when it comes to that sort of 'real life' material and you are talking about something you clearly don't understand very well, which might be a risk.

    As for her pre-meditating it, is this bad, or really that implausible, because the more she pre-plans the crime, the more she can get away with it, because she comes up with more of a plan then, doesn't she?
    Right, but then my question is why is she so set on this? I know you said 'because she's angry and wants revenge' and I get that. I'm even quite accepting to the 'rape' being a part of that, as a gesture of dominance and humiliation, but I would personally -- as a reader -- expect that to be a kind of impulsive decision. I think it would be harder hitting, paint her as more evil (or whatever the adjective is), if she just sat on his dick, grinning, in a moment of mad sadism. I find the idea of anybody, least of all a woman, premeditating a sexual assault questionable, if for no other reason than it's just not that common. Rape is typically an impulsive 'crime of passion', not some thought-out scheme.

    If you want my thoughts on the scene, I'll try: Sure, keep the rape, if you want, but I would not have the premise of the cops' interest be built on that. For all the reasons mentioned.

    I would see this better as being a matter of her enticing him back to the apartment or wherever, plying him with alcohol/drugs, before letting loose an extended scene of horrific mental and physical abuse that culminates in her forcing him to have sex with her. You could really go to town on it, and make sure that whatever borderline-eroticism there is in the sexual aspect is eradicated by the lead-up, in which she would totally objectify and hurt him.

    This has the advantage of creating a non-sexualized, convincing scene that would leave behind a huge amount of 'evidence' of what transpired and completely dispense with any chortling or doubt on the part of his colleagues. Have her burn his flesh, stab him, break his bones, set her dog on him, whatever. Have whatever transpires leave him permanently disfigured or at least in the hospital, covered in wounds and whatever and an extended recovery while his colleagues form an investigation built on a number of suspected offences. But don't focus on 'he was raped and that is so horrible' as a singular outcome.

Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
This website uses cookies
We use cookies to store session information to facilitate remembering your login information, to allow you to save website preferences, to personalise content and ads, to provide social media features and to analyse our traffic. We also share information about your use of our site with our social media, advertising and analytics partners.