as far as men raping with impunity....I know this results in that in the end but with the quote

"Not with excessive violence, or being hit, but rather being locked in a room and made to have sex against my will"

I still don't understand fully how a case like that could be won in a court of law. No physical evidence of any kind other than sex occured, how do you get over the beyond a reasonable doubt hurdle? Whats wrong and what can be proven in court arent always the same thing no? Can anyone with some legal acumen explain to me how this is possible? In another scenario, if my wife and I have sex tonight and later that night or the next morning she accuses me of rape, how exactly would that work in the court? Why would her word be more important or believable than mine as we're both "upstanding" citizens? Is the "why would she lie" question enough to convict me and send me to jail for 20 years?

From the comments I've read in the newspapers, it read more like "cold, hard, truth"-type comments. I mean, she doesn't balk at calling it rape, just that, hey, you won't get anyone convicted for it. And that's often the sad truth.

Jessica, you may be misreading a few Britishisms here.

When a British woman says "I don't think you can have that man in court under the circumstances" she is actually saying "The bastard wouldn't get convicted and that sucks."

They aren't as direct as Americans in the same situation.

More to the point. I think her comments are far from damaging if they tell the truth. Saying that many men wouldn't be convicted of rape under certain conditions is necessary. Otherwise how do you identify the problem?

Also, I'd say that men can't rape with impunity, that there are contextual factors here. Class, race, all that stuff.

Nowhere does Mirren say that women shouldn't bring date rape cases to court. I get the sense you didn't read the thing carefully. Am I the only one around here who believes in looking carefully before switching on the orange siren lights of outrage? Maybe I am just an old fart who no longer has the energy.

I read it the same way as AndersH & Jess, that a man can't get convicted in many instances because it's his word against hers. Not that he shouldn't be convicted or it isn't rape because the law might not recognize it as such.

I'm in London right now and I've been reading the coverage of Mirren's comments. While I think some of the commenters above are correct -- she seems to be clear on the fact that date rape is a crime, but is expressing despair at the unlikelihood of achieving a conviction due to insufficient proof that rape occurred in the absence of violence. I do, however, agree with Jessica that her comments make it sound like women ought not to try to prosecute a rape under such circumstances because they will certainly fail. She doesn't say so explicitly, but she talks about how the issue of consent in such circumstances is a problem of the subleties of gender relations, which indicates that she doesn't think it even belongs in the courts even if it is wrong and illegal.

What disgusts me most is the comments included the article in today's Independent from a Conservative MP, Ann Widdecombe, which I will quote at length:

"Dame Helen is absolutely right. This is sheer common sense prevailing. Of course if a woman goes back to a man's room she has responsibility for her actions. Of course she should accept that she has got herself into that position. What's she asking for? A cup of tea? If we say to women that you can go as far as you like with a man but once you don't like it then you can go running to the law, well then we are offering them a false comfort. I think Dame Helen is absolutely correct. We can't simply say that women have no responsibility whatsoever: to do that is to treat us like complete idiots."

UGH!!!

I think she sounds rather defeatist and flippant in her treatment of date rape. Now people are writing articles about how date rape isn't a matter for the courts...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/is-helen-mirren-right-about-date-rape-915788.html

The attitudes toward rape in the UK are atrocious. A good friend of mine was raped and the police in London treated her like the criminal and these were the "specially trained sensitive" cops that are supposed to help rape victims. I think the most shocking thing in Miren's article is that she was held in a room, against her will and forced to have sex but that's just all par for the course I guess...not sexual slavery?
From the article ( http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/mirren-talks-of-her-daterapes-then-provokes-furore-with-views-on-sex-attackers-914596.html )
"I guess it is one of the subtle parts of the men/women relationship that has to be negotiated and worked out between them."

Yes, you know...rape is such a subtle part of dating. UGGGGHHHH!!!!!

Regardless of interpretation, there's no way you could possibly interpret what she says to be congruent with the headline. She may have been being defeatist, but Helen Miren never said anything about "shouldn't", no matter how you interpret it.

See, that's how I read it, too. Not that it's wrong to report a "date rape", but fruitless. Impossible to prosecute (well, not impossible, but damned hard) - hell, just try to get a police officer or hospital worker to believe that you've been raped. Sure, it sounds defeatist, but I honestly think it's realistic.

When I saw this in IMDb, I died a little inside.

The page it should be on isn't coming up when I try and find the exact quote, but I recall her saying something about not reporting a man if you intend on dating him or intend on sleeping with him consensually in the future.

WHY, Helen? First of all, why would you intend to date or have sex with someone who is willing to rape you? And second of all, why should he not be held to the same laws as someone else?

It's a problematic issue. I think the reality is that there are times when women (as well as men) don't really want to have sex but don't fully say no, either. Some feel obliged because the other partner has paid for dinner, some feel that by coming to the other's home they have already said yes, and some don't realize "hey, I really did not want to do that" until afterward.

There are cases where it is much more clear-cut but there are also times that are more ambiguous. There are people in long-term relationships who sometimes submit to sex even though deep down they know that this time they don't want to. (I think that's what Dame Helen meant about not reporting a man you intend on dating later on.) Is that rape? Do we convict the partner? How do we do that? It's a difficult case.

We should not blame the victim but we should do our best to make sure people (men as well as women) do know what they want and know when they do or do not want to engage in sex. And when they don't want it, they should be honest and say "NO." Empower them to know themselves, to SPEAK UP and never to be afraid to say no. Lastly, and most obviously, we need to encourage an environment where the only response to a clear "no" is to leave her/him the hell alone.

i agree that the headline here is off the mark. clearly, she thinks date rape is wrong and there ought to be some recourse, but her statement was careless and could be (has been) easily taken as a justification for the further silencing of women who have been raped... even a justification for rape itself, per her "subtle" comment.

so, while folks may say she's being "realistic," i'd say that's a load of shit. profoundsarcasm's point stands with this statement; just look at the quote. it doesn't stop at "it's fruitless to report it;" she goes on to say date rape should be "negotiated" between the man and woman... hmnnn...

makes me think that she feels responsible for being raped. guilty even. as though she did something wrong and deserved what happened to her, though she'd never say that publicly. unfortunately, her public comments are going to allow more women to feel as guilty for someone else doing them wrong as she probably does.

on the other hand, perhaps she's just being really compassionate and recognizing that a man wouldn't completely violate her agency and humanity unless he were going through some sort of existential crisis himself.

in that case, i just don't think that helping a man out of his moral quagmire after he's locked you in a room and forced you to have sex with him is something that's for everyone and she should have made a point of that. /snark

I still don't understand fully how a case like that could be won in a court of law. No physical evidence of any kind other than sex occured, how do you get over the beyond a reasonable doubt hurdle? Whats wrong and what can be proven in court arent always the same thing no? Can anyone with some legal acumen explain to me how this is possible?

More than physical evidence would be presented. You could have the testimony of the victim. The problem with this evidence is that society is usually so ready to believe that women are liars, especially when it comes to sex, and that a woman's word isn't beyond some doubt.

Physical evidence can show that intercourse occurred, testimony could give rise to times and actions of individuals, and you have a complaining witness. All this means that a defendant can be brought to trial.

In another scenario, if my wife and I have sex tonight and later that night or the next morning she accuses me of rape, how exactly would that work in the court? Why would her word be more important or believable than mine as we're both "upstanding" citizens? Is the "why would she lie" question enough to convict me and send me to jail for 20 years?

It would work in court in the same ways that all sexual assault cases work in court. And the question for me is why wouldn't your wife's word be worth as much as yours? The burden of proof is already on her and the prosecution to prove the crime and the jury doesn't have to believe her if they don't want to if all the evidence they have is her word against yours. In reality, again, society is already primed to believe women lie about sex and sexual assault (despite the fact that false accusations of rape occur in the exact same frequency as other types of crimes, roughly 3%), so I seriously doubt you would have anything to worry about, even if you had sexually assaulted her and just didn't remember.

I just find it so interesting that men are so afraid that women will falsely accuse another man of sexual assault when the statistics show that men (and women) are equally likely of being falsely accused of just about every other crime (in fact, more likely, based on the frequencies of other crimes in relation to reported sexual assaults).

ElleStar.
Irrational fear of False Rape accusations stem from most men's journey seeking sexual consent. In our minds we tally up the errors along the way. All the rude/inappropriate things said, the times alcohol effected our judgment, and the moments when sexual arousal directed our thoughts.
It's my thought that fear of false
accusations is just fear. Men are scared that it could be them. The spiteful accuser is just a device for externalizing this guilt "on a women of course".

Since there's obviously some confusion over what Helen Mirren's intended meaning was, has anyone asked her to clarify?

I'm a huge Helen Mirren the actriz fan I think she is amazing maybe its the fan in me but I think she was saying that cases like her's were just so difficult to win.

ellestar,
Care to cite where that 3% rate comes from? Reminds me of the 2% stat, which has never been backed up anywhere. Personally I dont put too much stock in any of the false rape allegation stats, too many of them add in cases where there wasn't enough to proceed on and add that in as a maliciously false claim, others put it at 2% as i mentioned earlier without any stats to back that up. I don't see it as irrational carver, people often dont know a ton about this subject and only see things like the innocence project, high visibility false accusation cases and so on and take their cues from that.

Ellestar,
Its not that my wifes word wouldnt be worth as much as mine, its that her word would be worth exactly the same, hence my difficulty in seeing how to get over beyond a reasonable doubt, heck even in a civil case you have to get it to 51%, even that I can't see. "and that a woman's word isn't beyond some doubt.". again even in this general statement, even if the situation as you see it improved and womens testimony was believed at face value all the time, would that necessarily mean that mens testimony wouldnt be believed at face value, resulting in a deadlock?

Marcella has a more complete quote which leaves no doubt what Mirren was saying

'I don't think she can have that man into court under those circumstances. I guess it is one of the many subtle parts of the men-women relationship that has to be negotiated and worked out between them.'

Sounds a lot like "shouldn't be illegal" to me. You don't outlaw subtle parts of men-women relationships that have to be worked out negotiated between them.

Crap that link didn't work. Hopefully it will now.

elle,
just wanted to add, what I was talking about wasnt even primarily concerned with false rape allegations, mostly with where a rape did in fact take place, as mirren was quoted as saying, I just dont get how you get a conviction if everyone has equal voice and the man denies doing it.

I took her to mean that date rapes stand near-to-no chance of being prosecuted. It's not a victim-blaming statement to state that the court will do the victim-blaming. It's just a sad fact.

The damage I can potentially see from these statements is that she doesn't encourage rape victims to come forward with what has been done to them. But then again... coming forward is an extremely PERSONAL choice and one that not every woman is going to want to do, especially if they're not going to be taken seriously should they claim that an ex, a boyfriend, or a husband has assaulted them.

If you lock a woman in a room you are asserting an act of intimidation and therefore it is rape, because the sexual act is not of the womans own volition - duh! It was clearly pre-meditated as he wouldve had to feel that he needed to lock her in a room as he knew she wouldtve consented originally. He KNEW what he was doing. What is she supposed to think? Perhaps, "put out, or something worse will happen?"

Helen Mirrens statement demonstrates how her eras total disregard for women distorted and undermined her expectations of the rights and dignitys that woman ought to receive. Shes a case example of the results of such an openly oppressive time and she wears on her sleeve its negative effects. Thats why its important to always expose male privilege. If you dont, no one is keeping them from resurrecting those horrowing times all over again. Its bad enough today, we dont need to be losing ground.

And she told GQ this? Even worse!

Whit,
Coming forward with a rape isnt like reproductive choice. The only reason she wouldnt come forward is if she feels guilt or self-blame. These can originate from not being taken seriously by society or the police. Mirrens comments dont help a victim to be taken seriously. She makes it sound as if rape is just a routine thing you have done, something like going to the dentist.

carver,
If you didnt sexually assault or rape someone you wouldnt fear being falsely accused of something you didnt do. If you did something wrong while impaired from alcohol, then you did something wrong. theres no excuses. I think it is a reaction by men to maintain their privilege by making excuses to defer being caught.

Wow "Gopher". The worst thing I've done while intoxicated was to mumble some inane comment's and go to sleep early. But thanks for suggesting that I committed a vile crime. Sorry sarcasm fails...Your a Fucking Asshole..

Gopher,

Coming forward with a rape isnt like reproductive choice. The only reason she wouldnt come forward is if she feels guilt or self-blame.

OR... if she felt like she wouldn't be taken seriously by the court. It's an extremely jaded view, but not an unfounded one. I think we'd all like to believe that we'd be the ones trailblazing the courthouse if we were assaulted, but in the current political atmosphere, some women have the right to choose NOT to come forward, and they shouldn't be judged for it.

Either way, it's an extremely sad state of affairs.

gopher,
Who is to say I locked her in? Lets say its my wife and I and not the mirren example. How to prove it? I know I raped her but I deny it, how the heck do you prove it in a court of law? Ive asked this question in one form or another for a long time and no one ever has an answer for it, I understand how horrible the end result of it is but I'm just trying to understand, if both peoples testimony is valued equally and there is no other evidence, how can there possibly be a conviction?

Great, now opinions on RAPE of all things will be undermined due to experience with actually being a victim. Just what we need.