Person claims her experiences with Wyrd (and tabletop gaming) amount to terrorism

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**H.B.M.C.**

nkelsch wrote:
If someone steals your car, you report it, they are arrested but not convicted, he is 'not guilty' of stealing your car, doesn't make your car suddenly 'not stolen'.

Just because a rapist is found 'not guilty' doesn't means the rape didn't happen and the victim wasn't raped. And never making it to trial is not the same as 'innocent' either.

It is pretty vulgar to tell a rape victim, "welp, he wasn't convicted so you were not raped." The system makes it pretty hard to actually get someone convicted of rape unless if happens in the scary 'Man from the bushes at knifepoint' scenario. A lot of rapes go reported but ignored and prosecuted.

Sounds like you're saying all of those charged with but found not guilty of rape were still rapists and only got off on technicalities/lack of evidence.

**Kilkrazy**

Oldmike wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Although to be clear, the stats on rape versus false rape accusation make it very clear that real actual rape is about 10 times more prevalent.
What stats? I love stats. What is this based on?

...

31,000 rapes recorded by police in England and Wales in the year to June 2015.

6,448 cases of perverting the course of justice. This includes various offences of which false accusation of rape is one.

Source:
02appendixtablescrimeinenglandandwalesyearendingjune2015final_tcm77-419663.xls

from the Office of National Statistics web site

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/2015-10-15

If you look up the details on false rape accusations, it's very uncommon. Here's a report from the Crown Prosecution Service research archive.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/research/perverting_course_of_justice_march_2013.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwie5PO-ifzLAhVCqxoKHUNWCAoQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNGXrZK26UOubysD29Hp2tZkaOzyfw&sig2=rKGpdFeU-nNMkWqaRB-1jw

perverting_course_of_justice_march_2013.pdf

If anything, a 10 to 1 ratio of rape to false rape accusations is a conservative estimate.

Unless they are 100% positive it's false they just drop it and the U.K. has some pushing to not prosecute even those. In the US it's even worse as even proven false stores are not prosecuted

Please would you show your source for these assumptions you have made?

**A Town Called Malus**

H.B.M.C. wrote:
nkelsch wrote:
If someone steals your car, you report it, they are arrested but not convicted, he is 'not guilty' of stealing your car, doesn't make your car suddenly 'not stolen'.

Just because a rapist is found 'not guilty' doesn't means the rape didn't happen and the victim wasn't raped. And never making it to trial is not the same as 'innocent' either.

It is pretty vulgar to tell a rape victim, "welp, he wasn't convicted so you were not raped." The system makes it pretty hard to actually get someone convicted of rape unless if happens in the scary 'Man from the bushes at knifepoint' scenario. A lot of rapes go reported but ignored and prosecuted.

Sounds like you're saying all of those charged with but found not guilty of rape were still rapists and only got off on technicalities/lack of evidence.

No, I think he is more saying that just because the person accused of the crime is found not guilty, does not mean that a crime was not committed in the first place.

So in the car example the person accused by the police might be innocent but that just means that somebody else stole the car, so the crime of somebody stealing your car was still committed.

To make that example in a rape scenario, lets say somebody was drugged in a club and wakes up later having been raped. They report that they were raped, evidence seems to lead to a suspect who is arrested and charged but then found not guilty in court. That persons innocence does not mean that the first person was not raped, it just means that they were not raped by the person who went to trial and that their rapist is still out there.

So an accused being found not guilty does not mean the crime was not committed in the first place. A very famous example we could look at is the OJ murder trial. He was found not guilty, whatever peoples personal opinions on that may be, but that does not make his wife and the other guy suddenly not murdered.

**Kilkrazy**

You can look at rape and false accusation of rape by reference to the police crime reporting (which records accusations, not prosecutions or convictions) and by conviction rate.

In both cases, rape is far more common than false accusation of rape.

**Oldmike**

Kilkrazy wrote:
You can look at rape and false accusation of rape by reference to the police crime reporting (which records accusations, not prosecutions or convictions) and by conviction rate.

In both cases, rape is far more common than false accusation of rape.

That will not show a true number for false accusations as its up to the prosecution to file that

**Kilkrazy**

That's why police crime stats have to be considered too, as I pointed out. Police crime reports are reports to the police of crime, not prosecution filings.

**Oldmike**

Kilkrazy wrote:
Oldmike wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
VorpalBunny74 wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:
Although to be clear, the stats on rape versus false rape accusation make it very clear that real actual rape is about 10 times more prevalent.
What stats? I love stats. What is this based on?

...

31,000 rapes recorded by police in England and Wales in the year to June 2015.

6,448 cases of perverting the course of justice. This includes various offences of which false accusation of rape is one.

Source:
02appendixtablescrimeinenglandandwalesyearendingjune2015final_tcm77-419663.xls

from the Office of National Statistics web site

http://www.ons.gov.uk/peoplepopulationandcommunity/crimeandjustice/bulletins/crimeinenglandandwales/2015-10-15

If you look up the details on false rape accusations, it's very uncommon. Here's a report from the Crown Prosecution Service research archive.

https://www.google.co.uk/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&url=https://www.cps.gov.uk/publications/research/perverting_course_of_justice_march_2013.pdf&ved=0ahUKEwie5PO-ifzLAhVCqxoKHUNWCAoQFggbMAA&usg=AFQjCNGXrZK26UOubysD29Hp2tZkaOzyfw&sig2=rKGpdFeU-nNMkWqaRB-1jw

perverting_course_of_justice_march_2013.pdf

If anything, a 10 to 1 ratio of rape to false rape accusations is a conservative estimate.

Unless they are 100% positive it's false they just drop it and the U.K. has some pushing to not prosecute even those. In the US it's even worse as even proven false stores are not prosecuted

Please would you show your source for these assumptions you have made?

for the US look at duke lacrosse the Rolling Stones story from last year and mattress girl. All proven false yet no charges .

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Kilkrazy wrote:
That's why police crime stats have to be considered too, as I pointed out. Police crime reports are reports to the police of crime, not prosecution filings.

Yet false claims are not filed as a report of crime any more then perjury charges it's up to a prosecutor.

**Kilkrazy**

False Rape Accusations are recorded first as Rape Accusations then as Perverting the Course of Justice, if found to have no substance to them. This is in the UK.

I provided links and detailed information to support my argument. If you cannot do the same, your argument does not deserve to be taken seriously.

**Goliath**

Goliath wrote:
Oldmike wrote:
Goliath wrote:
Oldmike wrote:
Two people go out and get drunk ( not blackout drunk or passed out) they have sex was someone raped? What if someone lies to get someone to sleep with them is it rape? It's things like this that are problems for people
Depends, and most likely, yes. See, there's this whole thing called nuance, and another thing called context. Try them sometime!

So I betting to you if it's a woman and a man who are dunk then he raiped her but if it's two women then not rape.
There it is. The assumption that I'm *obviously* going to be anti-male. I obviously think men can't be raped, right? That's what you're suggesting? Well, fun fact, but it can be either of the people! How weird is that? All genders are capable of being gakky, predatory people!

And, another fun fact, but I've been in the situation you're hypothesising about, and I was the one that was taken advantage of, and I'm a guy! I know right?! See, you seem to have this preconception that everyone that discusses consent is obviously anti-male, when it's just not true.

Oldmike, you going to respond at any point? Or are you planning on just ignoring the post so that you don't have to maybe admit that you were off the mark?

**Howard A Treesong**

Kilkrazy wrote:
You can look at rape and false accusation of rape by reference to the police crime reporting (which records accusations, not prosecutions or convictions) and by conviction rate.

In both cases, rape is far more common than false accusation of rape.

There are a lot more cases of rape reported than are prosecuted, and then even fewer result in conviction. All the reported cases that are dropped, the majority of cases, you cannot say what the circumstances are in those cases. Which were clearly rape but dropped due to lack of willingness by the victim, which were dropped due to lack of evidence, which were a grey area (eg. both parties drunk) and which were malicious false allegations.

**Oldmike**

Kilkrazy wrote:
False Rape Accusations are recorded first as Rape Accusations then as Perverting the Course of Justice, if found to have no substance to them. This is in the UK.

I provided links and detailed information to support my argument. If you cannot do the same, your argument does not deserve to be taken seriously.

The U.K. Is much better than the US is on this I will admit thou the sentencing is a bit lite. They are trying to stop it in the UK though http://time.com/3613506/prosecuting-women-for-false-rape-allegations/

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Goliath wrote:
Goliath wrote:
Oldmike wrote:
Goliath wrote:
Oldmike wrote:
Two people go out and get drunk ( not blackout drunk or passed out) they have sex was someone raped? What if someone lies to get someone to sleep with them is it rape? It's things like this that are problems for people
Depends, and most likely, yes. See, there's this whole thing called nuance, and another thing called context. Try them sometime!

So I betting to you if it's a woman and a man who are dunk then he raiped her but if it's two women then not rape.
There it is. The assumption that I'm *obviously* going to be anti-male. I obviously think men can't be raped, right? That's what you're suggesting? Well, fun fact, but it can be either of the people! How weird is that? All genders are capable of being gakky, predatory people!

And, another fun fact, but I've been in the situation you're hypothesising about, and I was the one that was taken advantage of, and I'm a guy! I know right?! See, you seem to have this preconception that everyone that discusses consent is obviously anti-male, when it's just not true.

Oldmike, you going to respond at any point? Or are you planning on just ignoring the post so that you don't have to maybe admit that you were off the mark?

I missed the post my point is drunk sex is seen by many as must be the mans fault. The key unless you're blackout drunk you still have control. we still hold drunk drivers accountable why to we give drunk F'ers a victim card? In the US men can't be raped by a woman only " made to penetrate " it's that sexist idea that many hold to this day even feminist.

**Goliath**

Oldmike wrote:
Goliath wrote:
Goliath wrote:
Oldmike wrote:
Goliath wrote:
Oldmike wrote:
Two people go out and get drunk ( not blackout drunk or passed out) they have sex was someone raped? What if someone lies to get someone to sleep with them is it rape? It's things like this that are problems for people
Depends, and most likely, yes. See, there's this whole thing called nuance, and another thing called context. Try them sometime!

So I betting to you if it's a woman and a man who are dunk then he raiped her but if it's two women then not rape.
There it is. The assumption that I'm *obviously* going to be anti-male. I obviously think men can't be raped, right? That's what you're suggesting? Well, fun fact, but it can be either of the people! How weird is that? All genders are capable of being gakky, predatory people!

And, another fun fact, but I've been in the situation you're hypothesising about, and I was the one that was taken advantage of, and I'm a guy! I know right?! See, you seem to have this preconception that everyone that discusses consent is obviously anti-male, when it's just not true.

Oldmike, you going to respond at any point? Or are you planning on just ignoring the post so that you don't have to maybe admit that you were off the mark?

I missed the post my point is drunk sex is seen by many as must be the mans fault. The key unless you're blackout drunk you still have control. we still hold drunk drivers accountable why to we give drunk F'ers a victim card? In the US men can't be raped by a woman only " made to penetrate " it's that sexist idea that many hold to this day even feminist.

So let me get this straight.

You say "Well I guess you must believe X then? Right? Huh?".

I then respond pointing out how categorically, astronomically, insultingly incorrect that is.

And you respond by saying "well, but other people do! Even feminists! so nyuh!"

Can you at least apologise for the accusation? Please? I mean, you've just accused me of thinking that it's impossible for myself to be taken advantage of, when it's actually fething happened! Do you have any idea how gakky that feels?

**Oldmike**

Goliath wrote:
Oldmike wrote:
Goliath wrote:
Goliath wrote:
Oldmike wrote:
Goliath wrote:
Oldmike wrote:
Two people go out and get drunk ( not blackout drunk or passed out) they have sex was someone raped? What if someone lies to get someone to sleep with them is it rape? It's things like this that are problems for people
Depends, and most likely, yes. See, there's this whole thing called nuance, and another thing called context. Try them sometime!

So I betting to you if it's a woman and a man who are dunk then he raiped her but if it's two women then not rape.
There it is. The assumption that I'm *obviously* going to be anti-male. I obviously think men can't be raped, right? That's what you're suggesting? Well, fun fact, but it can be either of the people! How weird is that? All genders are capable of being gakky, predatory people!

And, another fun fact, but I've been in the situation you're hypothesising about, and I was the one that was taken advantage of, and I'm a guy! I know right?! See, you seem to have this preconception that everyone that discusses consent is obviously anti-male, when it's just not true.

Oldmike, you going to respond at any point? Or are you planning on just ignoring the post so that you don't have to maybe admit that you were off the mark?

I missed the post my point is drunk sex is seen by many as must be the mans fault. The key unless you're blackout drunk you still have control. we still hold drunk drivers accountable why to we give drunk F'ers a victim card? In the US men can't be raped by a woman only " made to penetrate " it's that sexist idea that many hold to this day even feminist.

So let me get this straight.

You say "Well I guess you must believe X then? Right? Huh?".

I then respond pointing out how categorically, astronomically, insultingly incorrect that is.

And you respond by saying "well, but other people do! Even feminists! so nyuh!"

Can you at least apologise for the accusation? Please?

I apologize for assuming I got into to many of these talks and 90% of them fall into that category my idea was to trigger thought not offend. The line I used has gotten others with that mindset to stop and think I regretfully skipped a step and strawmaned you on that part.

**Janthkin**

Oldmike wrote:
In the US men can't be raped by a woman only " made to penetrate " it's that sexist idea that many hold to this day even feminist.

This is legally and factually wrong.

**Oldmike**

Janthkin wrote:
Oldmike wrote:
In the US men can't be raped by a woman only " made to penetrate " it's that sexist idea that many hold to this day even feminist.
This is legally and factually wrong.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317

Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape

How is this false unless the victim is penetrated it is classed as Sexual assault listed as made to penetrate. This is US law UK may be different.

**welshhoppo**

UK law is quite clear. To be able to rape you need a penis.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is the law to prove it. S1 S1 Sexual offenses Act 2003.

Rape

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents

**djones520**

Oldmike wrote:
Janthkin wrote:
Oldmike wrote:
In the US men can't be raped by a woman only " made to penetrate " it's that sexist idea that many hold to this day even feminist.
This is legally and factually wrong.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317

Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape

How is this false unless the victim is penetrated it is classed as Sexual assault listed as made to penetrate. This is US law UK may be different.

Each state has its own law as well, but many states are identical to that. Tennessee for example.

**A Town Called Malus**

welshhoppo wrote:
UK law is quite clear. To be able to rape you need a penis.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Here is the law to prove it. S1 S1 Sexual offenses Act 2003.

Rape

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,

(b)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents

But if we go to the next section we also get this:

Assault by penetration

(1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

(a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina or anus of another person (B) with a part of his body or anything else,

(b)the penetration is sexual,

(c)B does not consent to the penetration, and

(d)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

(2)Whether a belief is reasonable is to be determined having regard to all the circumstances, including any steps A has taken to ascertain whether B consents.

(3)Sections 75 and 76 apply to an offence under this section.

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section is liable, on conviction on indictment, to imprisonment for life.

Kindly note that assault by penetration does not require a penis and that the maximum sentence is identical to rape (life sentence).

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oldmike wrote:
Janthkin wrote:
Oldmike wrote:
In the US men can't be raped by a woman only " made to penetrate " it's that sexist idea that many hold to this day even feminist.
This is legally and factually wrong.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317

Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape

How is this false unless the victim is penetrated it is classed as Sexual assault listed as made to penetrate. This is US law UK may be different.

Forcible penetration does not require a penis. Somebody forcibly inserting an outside object into your person is still forcible penetration.

**Witzkatz**

This wording still wouldn't punish a woman that raped a man with vaginal intercourse, if I'm reading it correctly?

**Ashiraya**

Odd. Why is a penis required? This is not the case in Swedish law (which includes any sexual act on an unwilling partner as rape).

Edit: Thanks, Malus. That makes more sense.

**A Town Called Malus**

Witzkatz wrote:
This wording still wouldn't punish a woman that raped a man with vaginal intercourse, if I'm reading it correctly?

That is true. Under the current law in the UK (unless there has been an update to the 2003 Sexual Offences Act in a later law) a woman having intercourse against a man could only be charged with sexual assault which carries a 10 year maximum sentence.

If that is the case then it is wrong and should be fixed.

However it is likely that a woman would be able to be charged with other crimes which could add on to that sentence. For example she would have likely needed to give him viagra against his consent and to forcibly restrain him in some way, so you could probably increase the sentence using those but yeah, it is an oversight.

**AlmightyWalrus**

Erections are not part of the somatic nervous system; drugs would probably not be required.

**Polonius**

Oldmike wrote:
Janthkin wrote:
Oldmike wrote:
In the US men can't be raped by a woman only " made to penetrate " it's that sexist idea that many hold to this day even feminist.
This is legally and factually wrong.

http://www.bjs.gov/index.cfm?ty=tp&tid=317

Rape - Forced sexual intercourse including both psychological coercion as well as physical force. Forced sexual intercourse means penetration by the offender(s). Includes attempted rapes, male as well as female victims, and both heterosexual and homosexual rape. Attempted rape includes verbal threats of rape

How is this false unless the victim is penetrated it is classed as Sexual assault listed as made to penetrate. This is US law UK may be different.

For starters, that's the definition for statistical purposes, not a criminal statute. Second, they go on to state that it includes victims of both sexes.

For example in Ohio (the state whose laws I'm most familiar with), rape is defined by statue as:

(A)

(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another who is not the spouse of the offender or who is the spouse of the offender but is living separate and apart from the offender, when any of the following applies:

(a) For the purpose of preventing resistance, the offender substantially impairs the other person's judgment or control by administering any drug, intoxicant, or controlled substance to the other person surreptitiously or by force, threat of force, or deception.

(b) The other person is less than thirteen years of age, whether or not the offender knows the age of the other person.

(c) The other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person's ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age.

(2) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when the offender purposely compels the other person to submit by force or threat of force.

With:

(A) "Sexual conduct" means vaginal intercourse between a male and female; anal intercourse, fellatio, and cunnilingus between persons regardless of sex; and, without privilege to do so, the insertion, however slight, of any part of the body or any instrument, apparatus, or other object into the vaginal or anal opening of another. Penetration, however slight, is sufficient to complete vaginal or anal intercourse.

It's pretty clear that women can be prosecuted for vaginal sex with a male.

**Oldmike**

A Town Called Malus wrote:
Witzkatz wrote:
This wording still wouldn't punish a woman that raped a man with vaginal intercourse, if I'm reading it correctly?

That is true. Under the current law in the UK (unless there has been an update to the 2003 Sexual Offences Act in a later law) a woman having intercourse against a man could only be charged with sexual assault which carries a 10 year maximum sentence.

If that is the case then it is wrong and should be fixed.

However it is likely that a woman would be able to be charged with other crimes which could add on to that sentence. For example she would have likely needed to give him viagra against his consent and to forcibly restrain him in some way, so you could probably increase the sentence using those but yeah, it is an oversight.

It's the same way in the US classed as sexual assault and is called "made to penetrate" men do not have full control of it just ask any 13 year old boy and there have been nasty cases where something has been inserted with disastrous results.

**Polonius**

djones520 wrote:
Each state has its own law as well, but many states are identical to that. Tennessee for example.

Tennessee explicitly allows for the defendant to be penetrated by the victim:

39-13-503. Rape.

(a) Rape is unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or of the defendant by a victim accompanied by any of the following circumstances:

(1) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the act;

(2) The sexual penetration is accomplished without the consent of the victim and the defendant knows or has reason to know at the time of the penetration that the victim did not consent;

(3) The defendant knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless; or

(4) The sexual penetration is accomplished by fraud.

Automatically Appended Next Post:

Oldmike wrote:
It's the same way in the US classed as sexual assault and is called "made to penetrate" men do not have full control of it just ask any 13 year old boy and there have been nasty cases where something has been inserted with disastrous results.

It's really important to remember that almost no crime is classified the same way across the US. There is a federal criminal code, which generally either involves the United States as a party, or covers crimes committed on federal property, and 50 different state codes, plus DC, Puerto Rico, and all the Indian reservations.

**Oldmike**

Polonius wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Each state has its own law as well, but many states are identical to that. Tennessee for example.

Tennessee explicitly allows for the defendant to be penetrated by the victim:

39-13-503. Rape.

(a) Rape is unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or of the defendant by a victim accompanied by any of the following circumstances:

(1) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the act;

(2) The sexual penetration is accomplished without the consent of the victim and the defendant knows or has reason to know at the time of the penetration that the victim did not consent;

(3) The defendant knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless; or

(4) The sexual penetration is accomplished by fraud.

Wow so in Tennessee you can be changed with rape for telling someone you are a rich doctor is that how 4 is defined?

**djones520**

A woman drugging a man, and then having sex with him, is still not considered rape. The victim was not "penetrated".

**jasper76**

Polonius wrote:
djones520 wrote:
Each state has its own law as well, but many states are identical to that. Tennessee for example.

Tennessee explicitly allows for the defendant to be penetrated by the victim:

39-13-503. Rape.

(a) Rape is unlawful sexual penetration of a victim by the defendant or of the defendant by a victim accompanied by any of the following circumstances:

(1) Force or coercion is used to accomplish the act;

(2) The sexual penetration is accomplished without the consent of the victim and the defendant knows or has reason to know at the time of the penetration that the victim did not consent;

(3) The defendant knows or has reason to know that the victim is mentally defective, mentally incapacitated or physically helpless; or

(4) The sexual penetration is accomplished by fraud.

Wow, #2 and 3 seem like they were intentionally placed there to give any rapist a pass. The "I was too drunk to know better" defense.

**djones520**

I think you are misinterpreting that Jasper.

**jasper76**

djones520 wrote:
I think you are misinterpreting that Jasper.

I don't know. If the prosecution can't prove 1 or 4, and the defendent was drunk, I don't see how you get a conviction. "I was too drunk to know there was no consent" and "I was too drunk and to know the victim was defective, incapacitated, or defenseless" seem like valid defenses against a rape according to this law.