Oh, I Think I Was Raped

We have been hearing about the Cornell (University) 7 - the frat boys who gangraped a Jane Doe on Oct 19, 2024. 

There have been 2 points of view along gender lines. One group believing that it was awful that the fraternity boys took turn violating her for hours when she was intoxicated. Some guys even invited others to join in, as though she was an edible thing being distributed. This was pathetic animal behaviour.

The second group points out two things. 

A) That if women cannot take responsibility for having consented while drunk, how can men be responsible for violating a woman when they, men, were drunk? 

B) How is it that Jane Doe's testimony initially was that it was all consensual and she later (after being disinvited to a Halloween party by the fraternity) said that 90% of all that happened that night was non-consensual? What gives..

Both views are ok. This post primarily addresses the second group. Why did Jane Doe's testimony change? 

I was thinking about Bhopal gas tragedy that occurred a few decades ago in the central Indian city of Bhopal. Poisonous gas dunes leaked from the factory of Union Carbide, an American company and killed thousands of people residing near the Carbide factory. 

India is a developing country. At that time about 40 years ago it was a poor country. Compensation for deaths at that time may have been about $1000 per person. Indians were used to a paltry sum as compensation unlike the amounts paid out in the USA.

When Indian government realized that the payout could be much larger than say $1000 per person they left the initial baseline figure and caught on to a higher number that was, say, $1 million per dead person. 

Now let's ask the question. Initially India was asking for a small amount per casualty because that was the norm in India. But when perhaps a sister pointed out that there isa different legal remedy which India could be entitled to, did India say "Nah, we don't want that million dollars per death" or did India say "Yes, that's what we want. It's legal too".

Now, a question to the second group. If you were representing India in the Bhopal gas tragedy against Union Carbide. What would you claim finally even if you initially were quite comfortable with a different (much smaller) number? 

Now tell me. What's wrong with Jane Doe's thoughts? If the legal system gives her a chance to say "No, I think it was not consensual because even if I may have said Yes initially, it was in my drunken state and hence the YES doesn't count.

Continuing further, let's see if the same principle can apply in matrimonial / divorce cases in India.

in India where women claim to have faced domestic violence and demand alimony the same principle above could apply. If I, the wife, believe that I may have been subjected to violence and that I could be legally entitled to a large alimony, why would I settle for anything else?

Isn't the question "Was i subject to domestic violence?" similar to "Was I raped?". There is a lot of subjectivity in each question. And if the answer can be yes, then there is a mighty payback at the end. Why wouldn't you try to claim it?

Additional reading: 

1. https://vbala99.blogspot.com/2018/09/stockholm-syndrome.html - rape isn't about consent. It's about how you feel after the event.
   
2. Dowry harrassment case filed by wife after allegedly murdering her husband. If you had a legal option to file dowry harrassment legally, why wouldn't you?
3. And this. A couple was in a consensual relationship for 3 years. Later the man didn't marry her. She filed a rape case against her partner. If legally you are allowed to file such a case, why wouldn't you?