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



## ironpony (Jan 11, 2020)

I feel I have to give a sexual violence warning here, but for my story, a woman kidnaps and rapes a man in it.  But I want the woman to get away with it, at least for the time being in the story, so she will have to get rid of the physical evidence before setting him free, and then she would have to deny it, and it becomes a he said, she said, type of case, and the police do not have enough evidence.

However, a couple of readers so far say they have a hard time believing she could take a man captive and do this, without drugging him.  But if she drugs him, that just gives the police more evidence to chew on though, and then you have more probable cause to build a case, where as I would like to get away with it, without any further complications in the plot.

So does she have to drug him for it to be believable though?


----------



## Sir-KP (Jan 11, 2020)

ironpony said:


> However, a couple of readers so far say they have a hard time believing she could take a man captive and do this, without drugging him


Which it would be a consensual sex if she was hot and no sexual violence involved.



ironpony said:


> I feel I have to give a sexual violence warning here, but for my story, a woman kidnaps and rapes a man in it. But I want the woman to get away with it, at least for the time being in the story, so she will have to get rid of the physical evidence before setting him free, and then she would have to deny it, and it becomes a he said, she said, type of case, and the police do not have enough evidence.


- Use rape drug injected to his drink. No evidence, no trace. She will be able to keep denying.
- The lady hired thugs to KO the policeman.



ironpony said:


> So does she have to drug him for it to be believable though?


I still can't get my head around this woman rapes (police)man idea.

Like what she looks like, her physical, her mental state, her sexual orientation, and what she is trying to achieve by raping a (presumably straight) man. Which then goes back to the policeman, why would he be with / near her enough to get raped? And then goes back to the woman again that why would 'rape' be her choice?

You know your idea, so maybe you have better answers.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 11, 2020)

Here's a slight problem for you to chew on: *In general, women cannot legally rape men.*


----------



## ironpony (Jan 11, 2020)

Sir-KP said:


> Which it would be a consensual sex if she was hot and no sexual violence involved.
> 
> 
> - Use rape drug injected to his drink. No evidence, no trace. She will be able to keep denying.
> ...



Well she's doing it out of revenge cause of how she's been treated bad by men all her life, so it's her way of getting power back.  As for putting a drug into his drink though, if he drinks it's it then it's in his system for days after, so that can be used as evidence though.  So I wondering if she needs to use drugs, how is she going to get rid of the evidence then, or get away with it, after leaving the drug evidence in the body, and give the cops more to chew on.


----------



## KHK (Jan 11, 2020)

Your policeman may be on a binge, drunk for days, not perceiving the surrounding reality quite adequately, and by far not in the best shape to defend himself or resist abduction.
The woman, on the other hand, may be an ex-highschool wrestler, or something like that (although that won't work with your suggested history of abuse by men). Or she may be on some sort of drugs that make her singularly focused on the goal while elevating the pain threshold, making her less susceptible to his self-defense attempts.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 11, 2020)

Oh okay, well it's just the policeman main character is busy working on the case, so he doesn't have time to get badly drunk though then.


----------



## Kyle R (Jan 11, 2020)

She pulls a knife (or gun) on him. Orders him to shackle himself to a chair. Once he's done that, she secures the bindings. Gags him. Etc ...

See the female-on-male rape scene in the film _Thursday_ if you need more details.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 11, 2020)

Oh okay.  However, I wast old by one reader so far that him being a cop, he wouldn't allow himself to be tied up, even at gunpoint, and would know that it was a bluff since her killing him would be more trouble than it's worth.  So he wouldn't listen to her at gunpoint, or so one reader said so far.

I saw Thursday a long time ago, but will check it out again.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 12, 2020)

Sorry, but this doesn't make sense.

Depending on the demographic of the victim and perpetrator, the length and circumstances of the kidnap, the type of drugs used, and her treatment of her 'prisoner' generally, I find it hard to believe the police would spend a whole lot of time on this case. They certainly wouldn't deem it worthy of forensic examination.

I mean, come on. Some girl takes a drunk guy home 'against his will', feeds him some ketamine or whatever, waits until he is unconscious and then somehow feels the need to hump his half-conscious body (which somehow manages to sustain an erection no problem), and then...lets him go? Sorry, but that's not going to rate as a serious crime in most jurisdictions. That's going to rate as a 'sorry about your, uh, bad luck...buddy. Still, worse Friday nights, eh?' 

You can't even really skip the drugs part, as that's the only realistic way you could prove lack-of-consent by the man and therefore the only route to proving a case for a legal rape (because proving female-on-male rape is extremely different, borderline impossible, per the DOJ definitions of 'rape). Having her pull a gun on him and force him to fuck her in the absence of witnesses and chemical evidence of intoxication...is basically a non-starter for me. Nobody would take that case. No police department would waste a single hour of a detective's time on it. 

Sorry, but the law is just vastly different on this stuff for men and women. Pretty much the only time the law takes men being raped seriously is when it's child abuse or when it is other men doing it. No point in arguing or whining, that's how it is.

If you really want to go with this scene, have her 'rape' him all you want, but she has to do something else (like, I don't know, killing him? Cutting off his balls?) in order for this to be legally significant.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 12, 2020)

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.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 12, 2020)

ironpony said:


> 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'.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 12, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> 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.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 12, 2020)

ironpony said:


> 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.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 12, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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?


----------



## R. A. Busby (Jan 12, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> 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/blog/updated-definition-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.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 12, 2020)

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.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 12, 2020)

R. A. Busby said:


> 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/blog/updated-definition-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.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 12, 2020)

ironpony said:


> 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.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 13, 2020)

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?


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 13, 2020)

ironpony said:


> 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.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 13, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> 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?
> 
> ...



Oh okay thanks.  Well my screenplay is set in a nameless city, as I thought that would be best, because then it can be shot in any city without having to fake it for another, like some movies do when they are set in any city, USA, so to speak, if that makes sense.  But does it matter if it falls under state or federal law to the story, if she gets away with it though?

As for what I want the story to be about, I want it to be about a man who is sexually assaulted by this woman, and wants justice, but she gets away with it, so he then wants to seek justice or revenge by other means.  But I feel in order for her to get away with her crimes, not just this one, but other ones she commits as well, she will have to pre-plan them to be smart.  If she is also smart and pre-planning about it, it also makes the story more simple though, cause then she won't leave any evidence behind if she does this out of impulse.  But on other hand, if the cops will not take this crime very seriously, then I guess that works out in the stories, favor if I want her to get away with it?


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 14, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay thanks.  Well my screenplay is set in a nameless city, as I thought that would be best, because then it can be shot in any city without having to fake it for another, like some movies do when they are set in any city, USA, so to speak, if that makes sense.  But does it matter if it falls under state or federal law to the story, if she gets away with it though?



It does if you want to incorporate real laws, because the US is a dual-sovereignty country with a lot of differences in how most crimes are coded and therefore investigated and the terminology used. The definition I used, for example, regarding rape was from the DOJ but it's a guideline and one that is of tenuous relevance as rape is rarely prosecuted as a federal crime. So yes, if you want to actually do real research into law and how it is enforced, using a state's legal coding as a template (regardless of whether the state itself features in the story) is necessary.



> As for what I want the story to be about, I want it to be about a man who is sexually assaulted by this woman, and wants justice, but she gets away with it, so he then wants to seek justice or revenge by other means.  But I feel in order for her to get away with her crimes, not just this one, but other ones she commits as well, she will have to pre-plan them to be smart.  If she is also smart and pre-planning about it, it also makes the story more simple though, cause then she won't leave any evidence behind if she does this out of impulse.  But on other hand, if the cops will not take this crime very seriously, then I guess that works out in the stories, favor if I want her to get away with it?



So, again, you need to figure out exactly what crime it is (as 'sexual assault' without qualification is not a crime but a label-of-convenience) and how that would typically be investigated, if it would be at all, within the jurisdiction whose legal framework you are using. You are far too focused at this point on the moral issues in play and not nearly enough on the legal technicalities for me to consider this anything close to a police procedural.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 14, 2020)

Oh okay, well in order for me to figure that, when you say sexual assault without qualification is not a crime, what do you mean by 'qualification' in this context?


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 14, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay, well in order for me to figure that, when you say sexual assault without qualification is not a crime, what do you mean by 'qualification' in this context?



What I said...



luckyscars said:


> 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.
> 
> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## indianroads (Jan 14, 2020)

<threadjack>


> 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.



Short vent here:
The son of a friend of my partner (follow that?) fit exactly that scenario. The girl told him that she was 19 - I've seen pictures of her, and she looked it... and could have passed for older (what are they feeding kids these days?). Her mother turned him in - and he has been on the sex offender list for almost 10 years (soon to get off we hope). He's had to take classes ($$$) and it has hurt his career. 

Are boys supposed to ask for an ID these days?
</threadjack>


----------



## ironpony (Jan 14, 2020)

Okay thanks, well it says here in this article, that the in the US, the term rape now applies to either gender according to the attorney general.  However, does this apply to all states then, it doesn't say:

https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape


----------



## Sir-KP (Jan 14, 2020)

indianroads said:


> (what are they feeding kids these days?)



KFC


But seriously though, there are a lot of old-looking teenagers in my country as well.


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 15, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Okay thanks, well it says here in this article, that the in the US, the term rape now applies to either gender according to the attorney general.  However, does this apply to all states then, it doesn't say:
> 
> https://www.justice.gov/archives/opa/blog/updated-definition-rape



Doesn't matter. It still requires penetration under that same definition. I don't know if you are aware of this, but most women aren't very good at penetrating things. It's a lack-of-penis issue.

 Recognizing men can be raped doesn't invalidate. As for why they dispensed with the victim needing to be female, it's obvious: Men can rape men. Which involves penetration.

FYI: Everything in law mandated by the federal government applies to states by default. Because it's the federal government.

Literally all of this was covered extensively in earlier posts, including that same link. You would probably find these threads of yours better received if you had the basic courtesy of reading posts before replying.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 15, 2020)

luckyscars said:


> Doesn't matter. It still requires penetration under that same definition. I don't know if you are aware of this, but most women aren't very good at penetrating things. It's a lack-of-penis issue.
> 
> Recognizing men can be raped doesn't invalidate. As for why they dispensed with the victim needing to be female, it's obvious: Men can rape men. Which involves penetration.
> 
> ...



Oh okay I see.  Sorry, I see what you mean now after reading it.  I should have read it more, sorry.

Well in my story then, the crime would be sexual assault and not rape then, since the way I wrote it, was that she forces him into herself.  Does that change anything in the story then, like how the police would investigate it?  If they wouldn't make a big deal out of it, even if the victim was a police officer, than I guess that works for my story, since I wanted the villain to get away with it?  But would they still make a big deal out of it, even a drug like rohypnol was used, and can be part of the evidence now?


----------



## luckyscars (Jan 15, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Well in my story then, the crime would be sexual assault and not rape then, since the way I wrote it, was that she forces him into herself.  Does that change anything in the story then, like how the police would investigate it?



I'm just going to start responding by quoting the posts I've already written to you earlier in the thread, since you don't seem to want to actually read the answers to your earlier questions.



luckyscars said:


> 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 one type of sexual assault*


----------



## ironpony (Jan 15, 2020)

Okay thanks, but I did read it through now, so am I missing something?  I thought you were asking what the name of the crime is.  Is sexual assault still the wrong name for the crime in my story?  It's just I already said the crime was sexual assault based on what I've read, so is that not correct, and am I suppose to say a certain answer, that I am not seeing?


----------



## Phil Istine (Jan 15, 2020)

In the England & Wales, there is an offence of rape which, as you would expect, involves penetration by penis into any of the three largest orifices.  Then there is "assault by penetration".  This involves using a penetrative object in any of the said orifices, so it's technically possible for a woman to rape a man in that sense, but it would be referred to as assault by penetration because an object would be needed.  .  The rest is sexual assault. I don't have data but I understand that assault by penetration is punished like rape, and sexual assault is punished on a case-by-case basis due to the wide range of possibilities and circumstances.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 15, 2020)

Oh okay thanks.  It seems my scenario is sexual assault then.  But how would the police go about treating it then, if it was one of their own officers?


----------



## Blueman (Jan 18, 2020)

If you engage the writer enough you can make the unbeleivable believable! What if she was able to hypnotise him? That would reduce the chances of forensics finding any evidence!


----------



## ironpony (Jan 18, 2020)

Oh you mean hypnotise him not to talk at all?


----------



## InTheThirdPerson (Jan 18, 2020)

So I read through this whole thread and the one question I keep coming to is: Why is it necessary to hang your hat on this just being some kind of sexual crime? 

What I mean is, your story hinges upon this woman traumatizing a man -- and getting away with it. _Getting away with it_ feels like the relevant point here, not what was done. So unless you're just wanting sex to be an aspect of it for the titillating / taboo angle, then your character could do literally *anything* to the man, as long as she fulfills the key component of not leaving enough physical evidence to tie her to it.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 18, 2020)

Oh I guess I just thought that it being a sexual assault would be an interesting theme to explore.  It was the initial premise when coming up with the idea.


----------



## indianroads (Jan 18, 2020)

My WIP (4th novel in a series of 5) is post apocalypse SciFi - people escaped Earth (earlier novel) and now, 22 generations later, their space ships are falling apart and the population demographic has changed such that males only make up 20% of the population. Street gangs rule the ships and male babies are sold my their mothers, and raised as slaves that are rented out to women that either want a baby or for a bit of fun. MC is an escaped slave.

I do *NOT* do erotica or anything explicit. This book barely has any foul language in it (vernacular has changed anyway). This aspect of MC's past is his drive to change society. He also has to deal with a lot of discrimination. The story is at its root, about redemption. 

IMO, characters need something to push them off neutral to drive the story forward. It's the old dog sitting on a nail story.


> _In case you've not heard it:_
> Dog sitting on a nail, howling in pain while two people watch.
> Person1: Why is the dog howling?
> Person2: He's sitting on a nail.
> ...



So the assault you speak of can be the nail that drives your character to act a certain way or take on a challenge. I wouldn't focus unduly on it though as it is only the impetus of change.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 18, 2020)

Oh okay, yes this assault is what gives the character his drive for the story.  But I am just struggling as to how the villain is going to get away with it, cause if she doesn't, then the story is over too soon of course.


----------



## indianroads (Jan 18, 2020)

Cover up by her friends / associates? A male complaining of sexual assault by female is often dismissed in our society.

She could have drugged him - he would have only partial memories, only the effects (if any) would remain. Again, his accusations might be dismissed.

I have a friend that married an ex-stripper, and she used to talk about "ladies night" at the club. Male strippers are brought in. She said the women were far more out of control than the men ever were - and said the women "pretty much" raped the men. Is your MMC a stripper?


----------



## InTheThirdPerson (Jan 18, 2020)

Well, here's the thing... when it comes to the legal side of it, sex crimes are already under-investigated. In fact, that they are often not taken as seriously as they should be often just adds to the trauma of the incident. So any physical assault is going to be far more realistic if you want an in-depth investigation and a frustrating lack of evidence.

Furthermore, there is a very real phenomena that some people who are sexually assaulted feel incredible shame and embarrassment. This is extremely common with abused men, so much so that they will not only just avoid reporting it, but do anything they can to avoid anyone finding out about it.

If you want to make your story feel more authentic, make the abuse some type of physical assault that would logically warrant a full investigation. This satisfies your desire to get the police involved. Also include a sexual assault, but make that more personal. Maybe she even recorded it and taunted him with it. Now this gives your male character a very strong motivation to find her before the police -- he's ashamed of whatever sexual thing was done to him and needs to find her FIRST.

EDIT: I should clarify that the above actually solves the problem in your initial question. It doesn't matter whether or not the woman drugs him. She just needs to gain control of him somehow and then commit the assault. Maybe she gets him drunk then ties him up. Or coerces him at gunpoint. It can be whatever.

Furthermore, you can then also get your male character to do some of the work for you: Maybe he's so ashamed of whatever was done to him sexually that even HE tries to hide the evidence of it - he doesn't cover up the physical assault, but he tries to do everything he can to avoid the investigation steering toward something sexual.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 18, 2020)

Oh okay, but I thought that drugs would make it more difficult to cover up, cause now the main character has a rape drug in his system and that gives the police more evidence, and more probable cause to investigate further then, doesn't it?  So would drugs make it harder for her to get away with then?

Also, if she physically assault him more, wouldn't that also make it more difficult for her to get away with, or if she records it, and then has evidence of it?


----------



## indianroads (Jan 18, 2020)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay, but I thought that drugs would make it more difficult to cover up, cause now the main character has a rape drug in his system and that gives the police more evidence, and more probable cause to investigate further then, doesn't it?  So would drugs make it harder for her to get away with then?
> 
> Also, if she physically assault him more, wouldn't that also make it more difficult for her to get away with, or if she records it, and then has evidence of it?



What's not looked for is rarely found. If the police don't believe there's been a crime, they won't investigate or do blood tests.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 18, 2020)

Oh okay thanks.  But since the main character is a cop, would they do blood tests on him and do him that special favor if he is a cop?  Or do they tell their fellow officers, sorry we can't do a blood test?  However, even if the main character has his own test done, aren't the police required to look at it?

But why wouldn't the police believe their may have been a crime?  If someone reports a sexual assault and being kidnapped and drugged, then aren't the police required to investigate, even if they don't believe one of their own officers?

I guess I just need more information as to on what legal grounds the police are able to not look at a report of a crime and ignore it?

It just also seems to me that cops are willing to investigate further if the crime happens to a cop.  For example, where I live, a cop had his car stolen and the police did a much better job of finding the thief, then they would if it was a civilian in comparison.


----------



## InTheThirdPerson (Jan 18, 2020)

The problem here is that just the presence of a drug in his system isn't going to be sufficient evidence of a crime. It would be corroborating evidence if there were also other details to investigate.

If a woman is raped, there can be direct physical evidence of the crime. The perpetrator can ejaculate and leave evidence. Even if he doesn't, if the assault is severe enough, he might leave physical damage that corroborates the claim of assault.

If this woman is not having sex with the man that is rough enough to leave behind some kind of physical evidence on his body, and she's careful enough to remove any sort of bodily fluids or other personally identifiable evidence (e.g. tied her hair up so as not to leave behind a stray strand), then what are the police supposed to investigate?

With zero physical evidence other than just his word and the presence of a drug, at best it would just be left as an open investigation under the hope that the person commits the crime again and this time leaves actual evidence to investigate.

You have to remember, police are not going to put a lot of effort into investigating a crime with little-to-no evidence when there are many other crimes out there to look into -- even a crime against one of their own. If there's nothing to find, there's nothing to investigate.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 18, 2020)

Oh okay thanks, I can write it like that then.  Before she drugs him and assaults him, earlier in the story, the main character fights off other guys from attacking her, earlier that day, before she assaults him.  So if he has bruises on him, could the cops just say, he could have gotten those from the fight he was in earlier, and that's not enough evidence therefore then?


----------



## InTheThirdPerson (Jan 18, 2020)

I think another problem here is that you're trying to create the "perfect crime" -- in that you want the woman to get away with it (presumably until she doesn't, that is, winds up being caught by the man), but you *ALSO* want this to be investigated by the man's cop buddies.

I don't think you can have it both ways. 

Either there needs to be sufficient evidence (of which I don't think just a drug will be enough) to warrant an active ongoing investigation, *OR* no one believes the man and he is left to try to find evidence and find this woman on his own.

Consider this:

Let's say I get beat up while walking home. I report it to the police. There is a lot of physical evidence that I was assaulted, more than enough to warrant an investigation.

But... I didn't see the person who assaulted me. Maybe they attacked me from behind and I never got a good look.

The police will collect any physical evidence they can. Maybe the person left something on me (a hair or something). Maybe there is an identifying pattern to the wounds I sustained that would suggest a weapon used or maybe even rings worn by the attacker that left impressions on my skin. Maybe there are footprints at the scene.

If the assault happened in a neighborhood, they will ask the residents to see if anyone saw something. Maybe they will look for a doorbell camera or other video surveillance.

Even after looking into all of those possibilities, it's still entirely possible that there is no evidence to investigate other than the fact that I am injured in a manner that suggests a beating.

At that point, there is very little the police can do. Essentially, the perpetrator has "gotten away with it" -- unless new evidence emerges or something else comes up (like another similar assault) to reopen an active investigation.

My point is, this woman in your story doesn't have to be subtle regarding the nature of the assault on your male character. In fact, the less subtle the assault is, the more realistic it is that the police will investigate thoroughly.

Her "getting away with it" really only depends on her not leaving evidence that ties *HER* to the crime, not whether or not there is evidence of a crime.

You don't need to over-complicate it by having him get in a fight with anyone else or anything like that. In fact, the more complicated you try to make it, the less realistic it's going to be.

The only criteria you need to satisfy is there being no evidence that points to *HER*.


----------



## ironpony (Jan 19, 2020)

Oh okay.  The police do not have to investigate the case, I just thought they would.  But they don't have.  Did I infer that they had to before?  I want the guy to get revenge on her after she gets away with it.  So he does this later by manufacturing a new case.  So that's when the police buddies get involved.  But they do not have to investigate this case.  In fact if they don't that's better for the story, cause it makes things less complicated.  I just didn't think they wouldn't.

So I can still have her drug him then to make it easier for her, but at the same time, the police will not investigate even if their is drug evidence then?


----------



## InTheThirdPerson (Jan 19, 2020)

Well, a couple of things here: The police are only going to investigate a crime of this nature if it's reported to them. So this would all depend on your male character's willingness to report it. If a police investigation isn't necessary for this aspect of your story, then your simplest solution is to have it not be reported. This would also be the most realistic, because statistically, men are far less likely to report sexual assault. There would have to be some really compelling reason for him to come forward.

Also, if your male character is a cop or pretty close with cops, he would very well know the investigation procedures. Therefore he would know that the less evidence that exists, the less this crime can/will be investigated, and that it would be even less likely to obtain a conviction.

He would also know that really the only important evidence in this instance would be evidence -- eyewitness or physical -- that can directly identify the perpetrator. This likely makes HIM the single best source of evidence. Did he see her do this to him? Or was he blindfolded / unconscious? If he knows who she is, is there some reason he wouldn't involve her in the investigation?

This brings us to him being drugged, this may or may not even be valid evidence. Rohypnol, for example, metabolizes very quickly in the body. So a blood test might not even detect it. But even with that and other drugs, the testing is VERY unreliable. There have been real life cases where victims have been tested at two different hospitals and received negative and positive results from them respectively, making the "evidence" highly suspect and possibly invalid for any sort of prosecution.

This is a fact you could incorporate into your story as a way for her to "get away with it." Your male character would know that with unreliable physical evidence, any criminal charges would come down to he said/she said regarding whether or not the encounter was consensual. This would factor into whether or not it would even be realistic for him to report the crime in the first place. Maybe he goes to a hospital and has his blood tested, it shows negative. He goes to another and it shows positive. Now he knows for sure he's been drugged, but also knows there's conflicting evidence. What does he do? Does he report it at this point? Or does he now go on his mission of revenge?


----------



## ironpony (Jan 19, 2020)

Oh okay thanks.  The woman is a witness in another case the main character is investigating which is how he gets to meet her.  But she doesn't want to testify in that case.  The way I wrote it is, is that after she sexually assaults him, she goes to the police after and tells them that the main character tried to blackmail her, saying that if she doesn't testify and tells the court what he wants to hear, that he would try to make it look like she sexually assaulted him.

So goes to the police and tells them this after, getting ahead of him, in case he decides to tell the police.  So if she does this, would she say she is lying then, and tell the court instead, she sexually assaulted him?

Also I remember reading that that drug stays in the system for two to three days if I recall correct, so I thought that would be enough time, if he reported it right away.  But would he if she goes to the court first and tells that story?


----------

