Drogo didn't rape Dany

[ishmael]

And do you know what? This post troubles me.

If that hypothetical situation did arise, it would still be rape, and Drogo would still have to pay for his actions. I really hope you weren't trying to make a serious point here, because it's verging on being absolutely ridiculous -- and slightly sickening.

A lot of rape victims don't even realise they have been raped.

The husband in this situation indicated to his wife he wanted to have sex. She agreed to have sex despite not really being in the mood, and allowed it to happen. How would this situation be considered rape? She had the option to refuse, but did not. Her behavior the next day also indicates that she did not feel like she was raped or forced to do something against her will. If non-consent is not communicated to the other party, where both are still functionally able to communicate, then participating in having sex would have to be viewed as consent.

Dany in the books never indicates to Drogo nor thinks that she does not want to have sex with him. She does indicate that it is painful, but this could just as easily be from the change in lifestyle and the trauma this has brought on her. The fact that she is so painful that she has to be helped off her horse and carried into her tent at the end of the day makes it very difficult to determine if the sex caused additional pain or simply exacerbated the pain already present.

As to the argument the she was too scared not to consent, his actions on the wedding night and him letting her take control of their sex life, gives the impression that he is not the dominating brute that some try to paint him as. I don't recall one time where he denied her anything she wanted, didn't take her side, or support her.

Her age is of very liitle issue because it was not that uncommon for girls her age to be in arranged marriages. Once she has "flowered", she is capable of performing all of her wifely duties and the marriage can procede. The "flowering" is what was the big issue as it signaled that the girl was mature enough, physically, to produce heirs.

Rape is a crime against an individual, as it is beign discussed in this thread. Dany demonstrates at times that she is much more mature than her age indicates she should be, but also that she cannot handle some of the situations that she gets into, which is age and experience appropriate. However, she immediately recognizes rape and that it is wrong when it is occurring to the goat(?) women (I forget what that group was called sheep or goat people. They were some 4 legged, domesticated animal), so to say that she has been victimized in this way and does not realize it really does not gel with the character that we have seen in the story so far.

Someone up thread made the statement that even if neither of them realized that it was rape it was still rape. I don't know how to categorize this statement. I can understand not figuring out for a while that you have been conned, swindled, taken advantage of financially (as in pyramid schemes), but to not realize you were raped when you were not drugged or incapacitated in someway is laughable. If the "victim" does not feel that she was raped, then just because an bystander or outside observer thinks she was, does not make her encounter rape. Just because you see situation, does not always make your interpretation of what is happening correct or even accurate.

[Lummel]

...Someone up thread made the statement that even if neither of them realized that it was rape it was still rape. I don't know how to categorize this statement. I can understand not figuring out for a while that you have been conned, swindled, taken advantage of financially (as in pyramid schemes), but to not realize you were raped when you were not drugged or incapacitated in someway is laughable. If the "victim" does not feel that she was raped, then just because an bystander or outside observer thinks she was, does not make her encounter rape. Just because you see situation, does not always make your interpretation of what is happening correct or even accurate.

As far as I am aware rape is generally a criminal offence in which case the views of the participants are irrelevent - it's a police matter. The public prosecutor may decide that a prosecution isn't in the public interest but that is another issue.

It's quite clear that as far as the Dothraki are concerned that there is no rape, it's debatable if the concept even exists in their culture. For Westerosi it is a different matter - Jaime's thoughts as a Kingsguard on the need to protect the Queen from the lusty intentions of Aerys II when he was over stimulated by fire suggest that in Westeros, at least for the nobility, there is at least a concept that martial relations ought to be decent and that a spouse is at fault if they behave badly.

The question really is how we as readers view it. Our ideas on consent and appropriate marital behaviour are the issue, GRRM has shown us the scene and we are the ones responding not a horde of Dothraki.

My views haven't changed on the topic so far, although I find Butterbumps!' post on the power dynamic and Dany's essential 'Fire and Blood' nature very interesting.

[ishmael]

As far as I am aware rape is generally a criminal offence in which case the views of the participants are irrelevent - it's a police matter. The public prosecutor may decide that a prosecution isn't in the public interest but that is another issue.

So, what you are saying is that the police can randomly arrest people and charge them with rape with no imput from any other person? I will agree that once the complaint has been made and the police has investigated the accusation and gathered physical evidence that a rape did occur, then the story cannot be retracted. The views of the participants is one of the most important pieces of information. If neither of the participants felt that their encounter was rape, why would the police be investigating it? Just because you observe two people having loud, intense sex does not mean one of them was being raped. Just because you call the police because you believe one is raping the other, does not mean the police are going to kick in the front door and arrest one of the participants for raping the other. The police will first ask you a bunch of questions, then they are going to go to the house in question and talk to both participants about the situation. If one who got "raped" doesn't cooperate there is no case. She cannot be made to get tested and without her testimony and physical evidence from her that she was raped, there is no case to go to the prosecutor.

Aerys is beating her during that encounter. He is not just having sex with her, he is physically beating and torturing her, and if I remember correctly she is asking for help or crying out in fear. A completely different set of circumstances than what we see with Dany and Drogo.

Yes, it is painful for Dany, but her pain is from already being sore with open wounds on her legs and butt. She doesn't cry out in fear or beg for help. She never has one thought about Drogo taking her against her will or that she is forced into doing something that she does not agree to do.

Yes, GRRM has given us a scene to read. However, some are adding to that scene and implying things that are not part of the text. Where in the text did Dany ever say no? Where did her actions ever convey that she was not receptive to Drogo's nightly advances? Where is there one thought in Dany's head, as we have full access to through her POV, that she thinks she does not want to have sex with her husband or that he is or did rape her? Those are the first three questions that have to be answered, not whether the readers thought the sex was too rough or too painful for her. Once the first 3 questions are answered then the scene can be read as it is intended without the extra make believe language and situations. When the scene is read as it is intended, the development of their relationship is much easier to accept. I do agree with QC that if he raped her, then her falling in love with him is rather unbelievable, but he didn't rape her so that line of thought is meaningless.

[Xray the Enforcer]

[mod] Do not accuse people of lying to try to score points in a debate. It's a shitty rhetorical trick and it won't be tolerated here. Thank you. [/mod]

[Gingerly Grumkin]

@Ishmael

Dany looked at Khal Drogo. His face was hard and cruel, his eyes as cold and dark as onyx. Her brother hurt her sometimes, when she woke the dragon, but he did not frighten her the way this man frightened her. "I don't want to be his queen, " she heard herself say in a small, thin voice. "Please, please, Viserys, I don't want to, I want to go home.

She doesn't want anything to do with him, but still not rape

The fear came back to her then, with her brother's words. She felt like a child once more, only thirteen and all alone, not ready for what was about to happen to her

That was right before they first had sex, he did a little bit of foreplay then and she was into it, then.

Even the nights brought no relief. Khal Drogo ignored her when they rode, even as he had ignored her during their wedding, and spent his evenings drinking with his warriors and bloodriders, racing his prize horses, watching women dance and men die. Dany had no place in these parts of his life. She was left to sup alone, or with Ser Jorah and her brother, and afterward would cry herself to sleep. Yet every night, some time before the dawn, Drogo would come to her tent and wake her in the dark, to ride her as relentlessly as he rode his stallion. He always took her from behind, Dothraki fashion, for which Dany was grateful; that way her lord husband could not see the tears that wet her face, and she could use her pillow to muffle her cries of pain. When he was done, he would close his eyes and begin to snore softly and Dany would lie beside him, her body bruised and sore, hurting too much for sleep.

Day followed day, and night followed night, until Dany knew she could not endure a moment longer. She would kill herself rather than go on, she decided one night . . .

Is that rape enough for you?

[Fearsome Fred]

Who cares? He raped everyone else.

[Lummel]

Ishmael,

Where in that scene did dany say yes? As a contemporary reader I see rape as non-consensual sex and I don't see consent in that scene. The point about marriage granting a universal consent doesn't seem to me relevant because Dany is of approximately equal status to Drogo's horse as far as I can see - afterall he doesn't have an issue with copulating with her when she is visibly pregnant and has just emerged from the sacred lake.

With regard to Jaime my point is that in Westeros there is a belief that there is a sense of appropriate sexual behaviour in a marriage and that Aerys II was felt to be in violation of that custom by two knights of the kingsguard. I contrasted this with the Dothraki among whom I do not believe such a custom exists. I was not implying that the acts committed were similar I was looking to establish that there are different attitudes amongst the Dothraki and the Westerosi.

Yes since rape is a criminal offence in theory what you suggest could happen, in practise it doesn't because part of the point of it being a criminal offence is to protect people who may not be capable of giving consent, or considered capable of giving consent, or who have been coerced not to allow nosey neighbours to interfer in other people's private lives.

[Gingerly Grumkin]

@Lummel

He stopped then, and drew her down onto his lap. Dany was flushed and breathless, her heart fluttering in her chest. He cupped her face in his huge hands and looked into his eyes. "No?" he said, and she knew it was a question.

She took his hand and moved it down to the wetness between her thighs. "Yes, " she whispered as she put his finger inside her

And Drogo had sex with her after the sacred lake becuse that's a sacred tradition. By then it wasn't rape though, she fucked him in his arms looking upon their Khalasar, kind of romantic in a Dothraki way

[corbon]

[mod] Do not accuse people of lying to try to score points in a debate. It's a shitty rhetorical trick and it won't be tolerated here. Thank you. [/mod]

I have repeatedly pointed out that this exact wording is not in the text (and makes things sound a lot worse than they are), without accusing of lying. I have asked for a reason why I can conclude anything else than deliberate lying. If a reason is provided I will go back and remove that part of the post.

It is not a shitty rhetoric trick when someone has been shown repeatedly that the words they are using are explicitly untrue, but they persist in using them to inflame the situation, to call them on it. The text has been quoted directly repeatedly and Dany does not scream. However the lie that she does is a shitty rhetoric trick to add heat to a debate.

[Fearsome Fred]

- Dany never looks back and thinks of it as rape

She just idolizes him as the Stallion who Rapes the World.

[Fearsome Fred]

So, what you are saying is that the police can randomly arrest people and charge them with rape with no imput from any other person?

No. He is saying the decision to bring a criminal charge of rape rests with the prosecutor.

He's right.

However, an arrest cannot be made without "probable cause" to believe a crime has been comitted. And a conviction cannot be obtained without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

[ishmael]

Ishmael,

Where in that scene did dany say yes? As a contemporary reader I see rape as non-consensual sex and I don't see consent in that scene. The point about marriage granting a universal consent doesn't seem to me relevant because Dany is of approximately equal status to Drogo's horse as far as I can see - afterall he doesn't have an issue with copulating with her when she is visibly pregnant and has just emerged from the sacred lake.

With regard to Jaime my point is that in Westeros there is a belief that there is a sense of appropriate sexual behaviour in a marriage and that Aerys II was felt to be in violation of that custom by two knights of the kingsguard. I contrasted this with the Dothraki among whom I do not believe such a custom exists. I was not implying that the acts committed were similar I was looking to establish that there are different attitudes amongst the Dothraki and the Westerosi.

Yes since rape is a criminal offence in theory what you suggest could happen, in practise it doesn't because part of the point of it being a criminal offence is to protect people who may not be capable of giving consent, or considered capable of giving consent, or who have been coerced not to allow nosey neighbours to interfer in other people's private lives.

Where is the non-consent in the scene? Can consent only be given verbally? Can she not indicate her consent through her participation in the act or her willingness to facilitate the act occuring? She didn't say she didn't want to have sex. She didn't perform any physical action, such as push him away or refuse to respond to his tactile suggestions, that implied her desire not to participate. She did not think at any time during that scene that she didn't want to have sex or that she was being forced to do something against her will or that she was in anyway opposed to the sex. At no point in her arc from the point of the nightly sex starting to where we are now in the story does she ever think that the sex as being forced, nonconsensual, or in any way against her will.

But some of the KG were not bothered by his treatment of his wife. I forget which one explained to Jaime that their job was to protect the Queen, but not from the King. This suggests that whatever form the King wants his marriage to take is ok. However, I agree that the normal and stardard treatment of a wife in Westros is much different than we see from the King, but I don't believe that we will have any trouble coming to an agreement that Aerys is not the most mentally stable person in the kingdom.

Rape is a criminal offense and at a certain point where there has been adequate investigation and evidence gathered, then it is treated very similar to domestic violence where prosecution can procede with or without the assistance of the battered person. What you wrote was: "As far as I am aware rape is generally a criminal offence in which case the views of the participants are irrelevent - it's a police matter." As it is written, maybe not what you intended, implies that the charge is brought without much or any investigation. The views of the participants is very important. If neither feels they were raped, then why would the police be invovled? If charges are brought based only on physical evidence, there are other explanations available for said evidence outside of rape. The last thing a prosecutor would want to do is bring a case of rape against someone and the "victim" get on the stand as say that they had rough consensual sex, but the police or the prosecutor never talked to them about the circumstances. You skipped a lot of things occuring before the case getting to that stage that you suggest. At a certain point, yes the prosecution will procede similar to domestic battery cases and cooperation of the victim is not completely necessary, but there is a lot that goes on before that point and gathering the views of the participants is part of that stage of the case.

The situations you give are special circumstances under the law concerning rape. None of those special circumstances apply to the situation in the book. Dany has no mental issues that render her unable to concent or to be viewed as unable to give concent. She is not coerced into the sex.

[ishmael]

No. He is saying the decision to bring a criminal charge of rape rests with the prosecutor. He's right. However, an arrest cannot be made without "probable cause" to believe a crime has been comitted. And a conviction cannot be obtained without proof beyond a reasonable doubt.

I understand that the filing of charges falls to the prosecutor, but this is the case with any felony or equally significant charge. What he said was: "As far as I am aware rape is generally a criminal offence in which case the views of the participants are irrelevent - it's a police matter." This implies that the opinion of the "victim" has no bearing whatsoever on the case or the charges. There are a multitude of things that will go on in a case before the decision to take it to trial or file charges is made. My point was that just because some Joe Blow on the street thinks you are raping your girlfriend, the police are not going to come arrest you without talking to and taking your gf's opinion and statement into consideration.

Read the last paragraph of post #181. My point was that if neither participant in a sexual encounter between two consenting adults with full mental capacity feel that they were raped, then how can anyone else say that one of them was raped? An outside observer cannot know or understand the dynamics of a sexual encounter better than the participants.

[Fearsome Fred]

I understand that the filing of charges falls to the prosecutor, but this is the case with any felony or equally significant charge. What he said was: "As far as I am aware rape is generally a criminal offence in which case the views of the participants are irrelevent - it's a police matter."

He is correct. The view of the victim is not relevant. The fact that the victim does not want the perp prosecuted is not relevant. The prosecutor can, if necessary, subpoena the victim to testify against her will.

This implies that the opinion of the "victim" has no bearing whatsoever on the case or the charges.

It doesn't. Not unless it prevents the prosecutor from obtaining enough evidence for a conviction.

There are a multitude of things that will go on in a case before the decision to take it to trial or file charges is made.

In specific cases, the attitude of the victim may be a factor in a prosecutor's decision to prosecute, and often is. But as a legal matter he is correct. The victim's attitude towards the rape is not relevant at trial, which is the point when the jury is asked to determine whether a "rape" occurred. What is relevant is whether the prosecutor can prove the facts.

My point was that just because some Joe Blow on the street thinks you are raping your girlfriend, the police are not going to come arrest you without talking to and taking your gf's opinion and statement into consideration.

They can arest you if they have probable cause to believe you have committed rape. As a practical matter, they probably lose the case if the GF will testify for the defense. This is a good reason to talk to the victim first, assuming she is still alive.

My point was that if neither participant in a sexual encounter between two consenting adults with full mental capacity feel that they were raped, then how can anyone else say that one of them was raped? An outside observer cannot know or understand the dynamics of a sexual encounter better than the participants.

The legal issue is not whether the victim is, in retrospect, happy about being raped, but whether she was raped. Lack of consent could be established (for instance) by having the victim (however reluctantly) tell the truth on the witness stand that she did not consent, and that the perp had reason to know she was not consenting.

What will matter is not the victim's definition of "rape" but the legal definition of "rape."

Note that I have expressed no opinion about whether Drogo raped Dany. Frankly I think we should just hang the bastard for mass murder and have done with it.

[ishmael]

He is correct. The view of the victim is not relevant. The fact that the victim does not want the perp prosecuted is not relevant. The prosecutor can, if necessary, subpoena the victim to testify against her will.

It doesn't. Not unless it prevents the prosecutor from obtaining enough evidence for a conviction

In specific cases, the attitude of the victim may be a factor in a prosecutor's decision to prosecute, and often is. But as a legal matter he is correct. The victim's attitude towards the rape is not relevant at trial, which is the point when the jury is asked to determine whether a "rape" occurred. What is relevant is whether the prosecutor can prove the facts.

They can arest you if they have probable cause to believe you have committed rape. As a practical matter, they probably lose the case if the GF will testify for the defense. This is a good reason to talk to the victim first, assuming she is still alive.

The legal issue is not whether the victim is, in retrospect, happy about being raped, but whether she was raped. Lack of consent could be established (for instance) by having the victim (however reluctantly) tell the truth on the witness stand that she did not consent, and that the perp had reason to know she was not consenting.

What will matter is not the victim's definition of "rape" but the legal definition of "rape."

Note that I have expressed no opinion about whether Drogo raped Dany. Frankly I think we should just hang the bastard for mass murder and have done with it.

This whole conversation started because I commented on Patrickstormborn's statement that: "Drogo still raped Dany, even if neither of them realised it." I replied that if neither party in a sexual encounter ever have any thoughts that they were raped or violated, then it is beyond ludicrous for someone outside that encounter to label what happen between the parties involved in the encounter as rape or violation. It does not matter how rough ot violent the sex looks from the outside, if neither of the participants feel raped or violated.

There are a great number of issues that can influence whether a case of rape gets charged, prosecuted, and/or convicted. Your argument, I believe, is starting from the point the the prosecutor gets the case. The investigation has been completed and the evidence gathered. He has enough and if he feels confident in a conviction, he procedes. I'm looking at it from the point of the encounter. There has to be some information from the victim, or there is no initiation of the case. Without the "victim" there is no reason for the police and prosecuter to initiate an investigation. I agree that after a certain point the prosecution may not need the victim to press charges, but without a victim in the first place, there is no crime.

[Torben]

@ishmael

I strongly disagree. Your view would entail that immigrants from "traditional" countries that continue their practices of oppression, marital rape, forced marriage, genital mutilation, physical punishment, honour killings, widow burnings etc. in the west would not be committing crimes if the victim is unaware (e.g. because she is not allowed to go to school or learn reading) that her rights are being infringed.

[QuaitheTheShadow]

@ishmael

I strongly disagree. Your view would entail that immigrants from "traditional" countries that continue their practices of oppression, marital rape, forced marriage, genital mutilation, physical punishment, honour killings, widow burnings etc. in the west would not be committing crimes if the victim is unaware (e.g. because she is not allowed to go to school or learn reading) that her rights are being infringed.

You're conflating two issues. Issue one: Is what Drogo did the cultural norm for Dothraki? Yes, it is.

Question two: Would his actions be considered rape by people today? Possibly.

I don't think Dany knew what to expect. The sex hurt. She didn't like that it hurt. We don't know if she didn't want to have sex with Drogo or if she just didn't want the pain. I suspect her issue was just with the pain, not the sex. When she learns how to have non-painful sex, she seems to be fine having sex with Drogo. And Drogo is fine getting his sex in the non-Dothraki way - he never forces her to do it the old way.

[drigoly]

in the books he isn't

in the tv show he is

so there are 2 khal drogos which shouldn't be compared to each other

[ishmael]

@ishmael

I strongly disagree. Your view would entail that immigrants from "traditional" countries that continue their practices of oppression, marital rape, forced marriage, genital mutilation, physical punishment, honour killings, widow burnings etc. in the west would not be committing crimes if the victim is unaware (e.g. because she is not allowed to go to school or learn reading) that her rights are being infringed.

I'm not sure how you draw the conclusion that my view on whether Drogo raped Dany suggests that I support the rights of "immigrants from 'traditional' countries" to continue their cultural practices in a western country where those practices are illegal and not condoned. You are governed by the laws of the country in which you are physically present. The laws and regulations of your native land may or may not apply to your actions (it depends on if the country you travel to has laws consistent with your native land).

I have discussed whether I think Drogo raped Dany, which I don't believe he did. She never thinks of their encounters as rape. She never says no. She never implies no with her refusual to accommodate the encounters. She never thinks back on those encounters as being a violation. I have not argued for or against it being the husbands right to have sex with his wife in modern society. Although, I do believe that it was the mindset of ASoIaF in general (and the medieaval history of our modern world) that sex was a right of marriage. I can understand that ideal somewhat, but it doesn't mean that I agree with it completely.

I have also discussed the statement made earlier in the thread ("Drogo still raped Dany, even if neither of them realised it."). My argument against that statement is not based in anyway upon the individuals not understanding what rape is. Is it really rape if neither party involved in the act feel that they have been raped or violated? If you are involved in an sexual encounter and you don't feel that you were raped or violated, then you must feel that you concented to the act or acted of your own volition. Does anyone else have the right to tell you whether your consent to an act is valid or not? If neither of the people involved in the encounter feel that they have been raped, then it is completely illogical for someone else to label their encounter as rape no matter how graphic, rough, or unpleasant the encounter appears to an outside party. Just because the outside observer believes one of them is being raped, does not make it so. The thoughts and the feelings of the parties involved must be taken into consideration, and an observer from a far is not likely to have that information.

With the Dany and Drogo encounters, we do have insight into the thoughts and feelings of the individual who we are debating over whether she was raped or not. We see the act as an outside observer and it is rough, it is painful for her, and appears to be a rather aloof act. Howeve, she does not have one, single thought that ever indicates she feels she has been raped or violated in any form or fashion. She does think that she is in pain, but the text clearly indicates that she is in a lot of pain prior to the nightly sex and she never thinks that the sex is the only reason for her pain. Also, the text clearly establishes that Dany understands what rape is and does not want it to occur, so it cannot be argued that this is a case of her being unable to understand or comprehend what is happening to her.

It is real easy to take something someone has said previously and try to retroactively apply stipulations and situations that were not part of the original discussion in order to make them or their arguments look bad. Dany (or anyone else in the hypothetical situations being used as examples throughout this thread) being incapacitated, incompentent, or unable to understand what is happening to her/them has never been part of this discussion from my POV or from anyone I have been debating with. What I have discussed about whether the text of a fictional book clearly indicates if Dany was raped or not, or how a general, ill conceived statement that a sane, competent adult would not realize that they were raped (given that she understands the concept) is illogical; in no way indiactes my feelings or beliefs on "...oppression, marital rape, forced marriage, genital mutilation, physical punishment, honour killings, widow burnings etc."

[Fearsome Fred]

This whole conversation started because I commented on Patrickstormborn's statement that: "Drogo still raped Dany, even if neither of them realised it."

Depending on what he meant, he may be right. Sure, to meet the legal definition of rape, it must be shown that the perp acted without consent, and knew it. But aside from that, it does not particularly matter whether she, or he, understand it to be rape or "call it rape".

It does not matter, for instance, if both perp and victim mistakenly believe that it cannot be rape if the victim enjoys it.

I replied that if neither party in a sexual encounter ever have any thoughts that they were raped or violated, then it is beyond ludicrous for someone outside that encounter to label what happen between the parties involved in the encounter as rape or violation.

That may be your personal opinion. I am merely telling you that your personal opinion is not legally relevant. What matters is whether the prosecutor can prove that the victim did not consent, and the perp knew this.

It does not matter how rough ot violent the sex looks from the outside, if neither of the participants feel raped or violated.

How violent the sex looks "from the outside" would be considered relevant and admissible evidence. It is relevant to the question of whether the victim consented and/or whether the perp must have known she was not consenting.

A properly authenticated videotape, showing the victim's violent struggles, would be admissible. The entire troop of boyscouts who caught them in the act, while the woman was struggling violently, would each be allowed to take the stand and testify to what they saw.

You may argue it is irrelevant. The judge will certainly disagree.

Whether the victim "feels violated" is not particularly relevant to anything. A judge might not even allow the question.

There are a great number of issues that can influence whether a case of rape gets charged, prosecuted, and/or convicted.

Yes, and many of them are not particularly relevant to the definition of "rape".

Your argument, I believe, is starting from the point the the prosecutor gets the case. The investigation has been completed and the evidence gathered. He has enough and if he feels confident in a conviction, he procedes.

Issues of prosecutorial discretion have nothing to do with the definition of "rape". They are not even binding on the prosecutor.

I'm looking at it from the point of the encounter. There has to be some information from the victim, or there is no initiation of the case. Without the "victim" there is no reason for the police and prosecuter to initiate an investigation.

Many rape victims have been murdered, and their bodies made to disappear, for precisely this reason.

I agree that after a certain point the prosecution may not need the victim to press charges, but without a victim in the first place, there is no crime.

You are confusing the issue of whether a rape took place with whether the rapist can get away with his crime. It is true that, in most cases, if the victim does not want to prosecute, or perhaps does not even want to "call it rape", the perp will get away with it.