Was this date rape? (1 Viewer)

[bigbottom]

We can talk about mixed signals and all the mistakes the girl made during the night in question but the 2nd encounter shows similar behavior from the guy with no mixed signals from the girl.

Except for the fact that she called the guy up out of the blue a year later and she agrees to meet up with him before he leaves the country on a military assignment. Assuming the guy is a bit of a Neanderthal, he may have interpreted this as an expression of interest.

 

[FUBAR]

Gotta agree with Otis at this point. "Affirmative consent" is the feminist version of "abstinence-only" sex ed in that they both share a completely unrealistic, ideological approach to sex.

I'm not suggesting in any way affirmative consent is required. But, you know, there's a pretty huge ocean between, "is it okay if I kiss you" to "Is it okay if I push you down on this bed and hold you down while I roughly #### you, even though we haven't had sex at all yet?"

You should really think hard on the latter.

Sorry, I should have been more clear about the point I was addressing. I posted earlier in the thread that I think this was probably a rape because of the pinning-her-down-after-she-resists part, so I agree with you on that one.

I just wanted to chime in on how silly the affirmative consent standard is. You would think that all adults would realize that this isn't how sex works, but apparently not.

We're not talking about "how sex works" but how "hooking up works". It is pretty clear women have problems with how the latter is going.

I'm old and a little out of it, but I'm fairly sure hooking up involves sex.

It also seems to involve an uncomfortable amount of rape. Maybe there are some aspects of it we should not be encouraging in culture and the law.

That's exactly what I mean when I say that an affirmative consent standard is an overly-ideological response to sex. People get it in their head that folks should really get a clear "yes" prior to each stage of sexual activity. That's a nice idea in theory, and I agree with it as a principle. But it's also not how sex works, especially among young, immature, and usually intoxicated college-aged couples. Re-writing the law to require affirmative consent, or brow-beating universities into adopting such a standard, just has the effect of turning a majority of college students -- both men and women -- into rapists in the eyes of the law. That trivializes actual sexual violence, damages the credibility of the law itself, and imposes real harm on people who didn't do anything wrong other than living their lives in manner that you disapprove of.

Like I said earlier, if we were talking about abstinence-only sex ed, everybody would agree that basing policy on a patently unrealistic view of human behavior isn't a good idea. This is the same thing, only from a different ideology.

IK - you raise a few points here that should be discussed further. I'm just asking your opinions here (and anyone else who wants to chime in) Taking this outside the scope of the OP. Frankly, I find this topic interesting and want to get away from parsing the OP's post.

- How would you treat intoxication of either party? The stereotype of course and from what I've seen, the norm when it gets to a prosecutor, is the female may be intoxicated to the extent that she lacks the mental capacity to consent. It's possible for the guy (or other female) to be intoxicated to that degree as well, which obviously is problematic, especially as voluntary intoxication isn't a defense. Evaluating whether the "victim" is unable to consent is almost always the key to a case, there's no definitive line.

- What is your point on the Universities accepting a standard? IIRC, universities don't make a person into a criminal in the eyes of the law. They might get expelled.

 

[Christo]

Gotta agree with Otis at this point. "Affirmative consent" is the feminist version of "abstinence-only" sex ed in that they both share a completely unrealistic, ideological approach to sex.

I'm not suggesting in any way affirmative consent is required. But, you know, there's a pretty huge ocean between, "is it okay if I kiss you" to "Is it okay if I push you down on this bed and hold you down while I roughly #### you, even though we haven't had sex at all yet?"

You should really think hard on the latter.

Sorry, I should have been more clear about the point I was addressing. I posted earlier in the thread that I think this was probably a rape because of the pinning-her-down-after-she-resists part, so I agree with you on that one.

I just wanted to chime in on how silly the affirmative consent standard is. You would think that all adults would realize that this isn't how sex works, but apparently not.

We're not talking about "how sex works" but how "hooking up works". It is pretty clear women have problems with how the latter is going.

I'm old and a little out of it, but I'm fairly sure hooking up involves sex.

It also seems to involve an uncomfortable amount of rape. Maybe there are some aspects of it we should not be encouraging in culture and the law.

That's exactly what I mean when I say that an affirmative consent standard is an overly-ideological response to sex. People get it in their head that folks should really get a clear "yes" prior to each stage of sexual activity. That's a nice idea in theory, and I agree with it as a principle. But it's also not how sex works, especially among young, immature, and usually intoxicated college-aged couples. Re-writing the law to require affirmative consent, or brow-beating universities into adopting such a standard, just has the effect of turning a majority of college students -- both men and women -- into rapists in the eyes of the law. That trivializes actual sexual violence, damages the credibility of the law itself, and imposes real harm on people who didn't do anything wrong other than living their lives in manner that you disapprove of.

Like I said earlier, if we were talking about abstinence-only sex ed, everybody would agree that basing policy on a patently unrealistic view of human behavior isn't a good idea. This is the same thing, only from a different ideology.

IK - you raise a few points here that should be discussed further. I'm just asking your opinions here (and anyone else who wants to chime in) Taking this outside the scope of the OP. Frankly, I find this topic interesting and want to get away from parsing the OP's post.

- How would you treat intoxication of either party? The stereotype of course and from what I've seen, the norm when it gets to a prosecutor, is the female may be intoxicated to the extent that she lacks the mental capacity to consent. It's possible for the guy (or other female) to be intoxicated to that degree as well, which obviously is problematic, especially as voluntary intoxication isn't a defense. Evaluating whether the "victim" is unable to consent is almost always the key to a case, there's no definitive line.

- What is your point on the Universities accepting a standard? IIRC, universities don't make a person into a criminal in the eyes of the law. They might get expelled.

If intoxication to the point one cannot legally consent is the standard for becoming a victim and both parties are intoxicated to that point they are both victims. If the prosecutor is inclined to not prosecute both then there is no crime. It would seem to require the same conclusion on the administrative level as well.

 

[FUBAR]

Gotta agree with Otis at this point. "Affirmative consent" is the feminist version of "abstinence-only" sex ed in that they both share a completely unrealistic, ideological approach to sex.

I'm not suggesting in any way affirmative consent is required. But, you know, there's a pretty huge ocean between, "is it okay if I kiss you" to "Is it okay if I push you down on this bed and hold you down while I roughly #### you, even though we haven't had sex at all yet?"

You should really think hard on the latter.

Sorry, I should have been more clear about the point I was addressing. I posted earlier in the thread that I think this was probably a rape because of the pinning-her-down-after-she-resists part, so I agree with you on that one.

I just wanted to chime in on how silly the affirmative consent standard is. You would think that all adults would realize that this isn't how sex works, but apparently not.

We're not talking about "how sex works" but how "hooking up works". It is pretty clear women have problems with how the latter is going.

I'm old and a little out of it, but I'm fairly sure hooking up involves sex.

It also seems to involve an uncomfortable amount of rape. Maybe there are some aspects of it we should not be encouraging in culture and the law.

That's exactly what I mean when I say that an affirmative consent standard is an overly-ideological response to sex. People get it in their head that folks should really get a clear "yes" prior to each stage of sexual activity. That's a nice idea in theory, and I agree with it as a principle. But it's also not how sex works, especially among young, immature, and usually intoxicated college-aged couples. Re-writing the law to require affirmative consent, or brow-beating universities into adopting such a standard, just has the effect of turning a majority of college students -- both men and women -- into rapists in the eyes of the law. That trivializes actual sexual violence, damages the credibility of the law itself, and imposes real harm on people who didn't do anything wrong other than living their lives in manner that you disapprove of.

Like I said earlier, if we were talking about abstinence-only sex ed, everybody would agree that basing policy on a patently unrealistic view of human behavior isn't a good idea. This is the same thing, only from a different ideology.

IK - you raise a few points here that should be discussed further. I'm just asking your opinions here (and anyone else who wants to chime in) Taking this outside the scope of the OP. Frankly, I find this topic interesting and want to get away from parsing the OP's post.

- How would you treat intoxication of either party? The stereotype of course and from what I've seen, the norm when it gets to a prosecutor, is the female may be intoxicated to the extent that she lacks the mental capacity to consent. It's possible for the guy (or other female) to be intoxicated to that degree as well, which obviously is problematic, especially as voluntary intoxication isn't a defense. Evaluating whether the "victim" is unable to consent is almost always the key to a case, there's no definitive line.

- What is your point on the Universities accepting a standard? IIRC, universities don't make a person into a criminal in the eyes of the law. They might get expelled.

If intoxication to the point one cannot legally consent is the standard for becoming a victim and both parties are intoxicated to that point they are both victims. If the prosecutor is inclined to not prosecute both then there is no crime. It would seem to require the same conclusion on the administrative level as well.

Interesting perspective.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Gotta agree with Otis at this point. "Affirmative consent" is the feminist version of "abstinence-only" sex ed in that they both share a completely unrealistic, ideological approach to sex.

I'm not suggesting in any way affirmative consent is required. But, you know, there's a pretty huge ocean between, "is it okay if I kiss you" to "Is it okay if I push you down on this bed and hold you down while I roughly #### you, even though we haven't had sex at all yet?"

You should really think hard on the latter.

Sorry, I should have been more clear about the point I was addressing. I posted earlier in the thread that I think this was probably a rape because of the pinning-her-down-after-she-resists part, so I agree with you on that one.

I just wanted to chime in on how silly the affirmative consent standard is. You would think that all adults would realize that this isn't how sex works, but apparently not.

We're not talking about "how sex works" but how "hooking up works". It is pretty clear women have problems with how the latter is going.

I'm old and a little out of it, but I'm fairly sure hooking up involves sex.

It also seems to involve an uncomfortable amount of rape. Maybe there are some aspects of it we should not be encouraging in culture and the law.

That's exactly what I mean when I say that an affirmative consent standard is an overly-ideological response to sex. People get it in their head that folks should really get a clear "yes" prior to each stage of sexual activity. That's a nice idea in theory, and I agree with it as a principle. But it's also not how sex works, especially among young, immature, and usually intoxicated college-aged couples. Re-writing the law to require affirmative consent, or brow-beating universities into adopting such a standard, just has the effect of turning a majority of college students -- both men and women -- into rapists in the eyes of the law. That trivializes actual sexual violence, damages the credibility of the law itself, and imposes real harm on people who didn't do anything wrong other than living their lives in manner that you disapprove of.

Like I said earlier, if we were talking about abstinence-only sex ed, everybody would agree that basing policy on a patently unrealistic view of human behavior isn't a good idea. This is the same thing, only from a different ideology.

IK - you raise a few points here that should be discussed further. I'm just asking your opinions here (and anyone else who wants to chime in) Taking this outside the scope of the OP. Frankly, I find this topic interesting and want to get away from parsing the OP's post.

- How would you treat intoxication of either party? The stereotype of course and from what I've seen, the norm when it gets to a prosecutor, is the female may be intoxicated to the extent that she lacks the mental capacity to consent. It's possible for the guy (or other female) to be intoxicated to that degree as well, which obviously is problematic, especially as voluntary intoxication isn't a defense. Evaluating whether the "victim" is unable to consent is almost always the key to a case, there's no definitive line.

- What is your point on the Universities accepting a standard? IIRC, universities don't make a person into a criminal in the eyes of the law. They might get expelled.

If intoxication to the point one cannot legally consent is the standard for becoming a victim and both parties are intoxicated to that point they are both victims. If the prosecutor is inclined to not prosecute both then there is no crime. It would seem to require the same conclusion on the administrative level as well.

Interesting perspective.

I see the basic logic but being intoxicated also isn't an excuse for commiting a crime. Someone has to initiate the activity, even if they are intoxicated beyond a point where they can't consent to something happening to them.

Of course how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt who initiated what when people are at that point? Which is naturally a big component of the problem. If it can be established though, I don't think the charge them both or neither can be considered.

 

[Christo]

I'm not suggesting in any way affirmative consent is required. But, you know, there's a pretty huge ocean between, "is it okay if I kiss you" to "Is it okay if I push you down on this bed and hold you down while I roughly #### you, even though we haven't had sex at all yet?"

You should really think hard on the latter.

Sorry, I should have been more clear about the point I was addressing. I posted earlier in the thread that I think this was probably a rape because of the pinning-her-down-after-she-resists part, so I agree with you on that one.

I just wanted to chime in on how silly the affirmative consent standard is. You would think that all adults would realize that this isn't how sex works, but apparently not.

We're not talking about "how sex works" but how "hooking up works". It is pretty clear women have problems with how the latter is going.

I'm old and a little out of it, but I'm fairly sure hooking up involves sex.

It also seems to involve an uncomfortable amount of rape. Maybe there are some aspects of it we should not be encouraging in culture and the law.

That's exactly what I mean when I say that an affirmative consent standard is an overly-ideological response to sex. People get it in their head that folks should really get a clear "yes" prior to each stage of sexual activity. That's a nice idea in theory, and I agree with it as a principle. But it's also not how sex works, especially among young, immature, and usually intoxicated college-aged couples. Re-writing the law to require affirmative consent, or brow-beating universities into adopting such a standard, just has the effect of turning a majority of college students -- both men and women -- into rapists in the eyes of the law. That trivializes actual sexual violence, damages the credibility of the law itself, and imposes real harm on people who didn't do anything wrong other than living their lives in manner that you disapprove of.

Like I said earlier, if we were talking about abstinence-only sex ed, everybody would agree that basing policy on a patently unrealistic view of human behavior isn't a good idea. This is the same thing, only from a different ideology.

IK - you raise a few points here that should be discussed further. I'm just asking your opinions here (and anyone else who wants to chime in) Taking this outside the scope of the OP. Frankly, I find this topic interesting and want to get away from parsing the OP's post.

- How would you treat intoxication of either party? The stereotype of course and from what I've seen, the norm when it gets to a prosecutor, is the female may be intoxicated to the extent that she lacks the mental capacity to consent. It's possible for the guy (or other female) to be intoxicated to that degree as well, which obviously is problematic, especially as voluntary intoxication isn't a defense. Evaluating whether the "victim" is unable to consent is almost always the key to a case, there's no definitive line.

- What is your point on the Universities accepting a standard? IIRC, universities don't make a person into a criminal in the eyes of the law. They might get expelled.

If intoxication to the point one cannot legally consent is the standard for becoming a victim and both parties are intoxicated to that point they are both victims. If the prosecutor is inclined to not prosecute both then there is no crime. It would seem to require the same conclusion on the administrative level as well.

Interesting perspective.

I see the basic logic but being intoxicated also isn't an excuse for commiting a crime. Someone has to initiate the activity, even if they are intoxicated beyond a point where they can't consent to something happening to them.

Of course how do you prove beyond a reasonable doubt who initiated what when people are at that point? Which is naturally a big component of the problem. If it can be established though, I don't think the charge them both or neither can be considered.

How do you establish anything if both parties were that drunk?

 

[Christo]

And why is who initiated the activity relevant if the question is whether the people involved had the legal capacity to consent?

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Like I said, I imagine in most cases it's difficult to establish. But if you had fairly consistent first hand accounts or a third party that can provide details I wouldn't think it's impossible.

Initiating the activity seems incredibly important since people are still legally accountable for their actions regardless of impairment. If two drunk people get in a car, they are both stupid but only the driver is getting arrested for a DUI.

 

[Clifford]

I obviously had an opinion when I started this thread but wanted to just present the story without my feelings on the topic first.

I feel pretty confident nothing about this was a turn on to her once she put her hands on his shoulders and he pinned her. Not sure why her liking him carrying her to the room is a factor. She was also turned on by the kissing on the couch. She still has every right to stop him at any point regardless of what has taken place prior. Being pushed away is the same as saying no in my book so if you feel differently then that's your opinion but you won't change mine.

I am pretty willing to accept any pov from rape to the guy is a total ### clown that knew she wasn't into it. I can't however buy into the fact that she was into it. I have spoken to her in person so I have the benefit of that while others do not.

Girl is not into drama that I can tell. Her life is not a mess and she has only told me and one other person about that night so I don't think she is looking for attention.

I find it worrisome that so many people start to question the girl so easily. I guess the amount of limited information is the problem. No doubt she used terrible judgement. However you want to talk about mixed signals is fine but pinning a girls arms because she tries to stop you then ramming it inside of her is not acceptable. Might not be legally called rape but he forced her to do something against her will. I also said I believe had he stopped and had nice pillow talk and began to work her, there is a good chance she gives consent, but that's not what he did. She said once she pinned her and rammed it in she was afraid to try and stop him. I don't feel like she is trying to make herself feel better about that night by skewing the events in her favor I actually felt like she was trying to paint him in a better way than he deserved. I think she doesn't want to admit to herself exactly what happened in my opinion.

She said she had feelings for the guy so maybe that's why she called him a year later. I am not for sure and I don't see me bringing this up unless she initiates it. That is my main issue with everything. I think it might be like why a battered woman keeps going back to her man type of thing.

I'll stick to my same argument for those somewhat defending his actions. Imagine this happened to your daughter or sister. What might change then?

I think the bolded is where most have an issue calling this rape, though those folks (myself included) are in the minority.

I do not think that she wanted it or that she invited it. Hell, I think she could have willingly consented and then changed her mind halfway through and said stop and dude should jump off the bed immediately.

And I personally think this guy was far too aggressive and I am willing to believe that she did "freeze" during the act and was afraid to protest.

Where the grey area exists for me is what was going on the in the head of the dude. I can't say from the OP whether he thought he was being a romantic, take-charge guy or whether he was trying to quickly and forcefully close the deal. Had she said no at any point during or after being carried up to her room, then this would be a slam-dunk case of date rape. By not doing so, she might not have hit this dude over the head with the fact that he was crossing a line.

So all I am saying is I allow for the possibility that this dude was just missing signals that seem clear in this thread. That possibility is enough for me not to call him a rapist based on the info we have. It does not in any way lessen the impact of this event on her or put her at blame for anything. But calling someone a rapist is a very serious charge and should exclude the possibility that the person in question was just a #######. And saying no, I don't want this would have excluded that possibility.

 

[Christo]

Like I said, I imagine in most cases it's difficult to establish. But if you had fairly consistent first hand accounts or a third party that can provide details I wouldn't think it's impossible.

Initiating the activity seems incredibly important since people are still legally accountable for their actions regardless of impairment. If two drunk people get in a car, they are both stupid but only the driver is getting arrested for a DUI.

This makes no sense. If people are legally accountable for their actions regardless of impairment how can we claim a person cannot give consent?

As to your following sentence, the other guy cannot be charged with DUI because he didn't drive. It's not analogous to two people actually consenting to have sex with each other while they are drunk.

 

[FUBAR]

And why is who initiated the activity relevant if the question is whether the people involved had the legal capacity to consent?

Thankfully the last question is mostly academic as, usually, if they're both that intoxicated, not much happens. We're talking really drunk here, usually the person couldn't function.

 

[Christo]

And why is who initiated the activity relevant if the question is whether the people involved had the legal capacity to consent?

Thankfully the last question is mostly academic as, usually, if they're both that intoxicated, not much happens. We're talking really drunk here, usually the person couldn't function.

Oh, bull####.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

Like I said, I imagine in most cases it's difficult to establish. But if you had fairly consistent first hand accounts or a third party that can provide details I wouldn't think it's impossible.

Initiating the activity seems incredibly important since people are still legally accountable for their actions regardless of impairment. If two drunk people get in a car, they are both stupid but only the driver is getting arrested for a DUI.

This makes no sense. If people are legally accountable for their actions regardless of impairment how can we claim a person cannot give consent?

As to your following sentence, the other guy cannot be charged with DUI because he didn't drive. It's not analogous to two people actually consenting to have sex with each other while they are drunk.

Right, but if you are initiating you are clearly consenting to whatever you are doing, even if you are drunk to a point you couldn't technically consent to someone doing something to you. I don't understand what's complicated about that.

I don't understand what could possibly be confusing about the first point.

ETA: I think we may be talking around each other. I'm thinking of a situation where one party is clearly more functional but still intoxicated, in which my point was you couldn't say it's impossible for that person to be charged if you don't charge the other just because they are drunk.

 

[Christo]

Like I said, I imagine in most cases it's difficult to establish. But if you had fairly consistent first hand accounts or a third party that can provide details I wouldn't think it's impossible.

Initiating the activity seems incredibly important since people are still legally accountable for their actions regardless of impairment. If two drunk people get in a car, they are both stupid but only the driver is getting arrested for a DUI.

This makes no sense. If people are legally accountable for their actions regardless of impairment how can we claim a person cannot give consent?

As to your following sentence, the other guy cannot be charged with DUI because he didn't drive. It's not analogous to two people actually consenting to have sex with each other while they are drunk.

Right, but if you are initiating you are clearly consenting to whatever you are doing, even if you are drunk to a point you couldn't technically consent to someone doing something to you. I don't understand what's complicated about that.

I don't understand what could possibly be confusing about the first point.

But the law says you cannot consent.

 

[Papa Georgio]

I obviously had an opinion when I started this thread but wanted to just present the story without my feelings on the topic first.

I feel pretty confident nothing about this was a turn on to her once she put her hands on his shoulders and he pinned her. Not sure why her liking him carrying her to the room is a factor. She was also turned on by the kissing on the couch. She still has every right to stop him at any point regardless of what has taken place prior. Being pushed away is the same as saying no in my book so if you feel differently then that's your opinion but you won't change mine.

I am pretty willing to accept any pov from rape to the guy is a total ### clown that knew she wasn't into it. I can't however buy into the fact that she was into it. I have spoken to her in person so I have the benefit of that while others do not.

Girl is not into drama that I can tell. Her life is not a mess and she has only told me and one other person about that night so I don't think she is looking for attention.

I find it worrisome that so many people start to question the girl so easily. I guess the amount of limited information is the problem. No doubt she used terrible judgement. However you want to talk about mixed signals is fine but pinning a girls arms because she tries to stop you then ramming it inside of her is not acceptable. Might not be legally called rape but he forced her to do something against her will. I also said I believe had he stopped and had nice pillow talk and began to work her, there is a good chance she gives consent, but that's not what he did. She said once she pinned her and rammed it in she was afraid to try and stop him. I don't feel like she is trying to make herself feel better about that night by skewing the events in her favor I actually felt like she was trying to paint him in a better way than he deserved. I think she doesn't want to admit to herself exactly what happened in my opinion.

She said she had feelings for the guy so maybe that's why she called him a year later. I am not for sure and I don't see me bringing this up unless she initiates it. That is my main issue with everything. I think it might be like why a battered woman keeps going back to her man type of thing.

I'll stick to my same argument for those somewhat defending his actions. Imagine this happened to your daughter or sister. What might change then?

I think the bolded is where most have an issue calling this rape, though those folks (myself included) are in the minority.

I do not think that she wanted it or that she invited it. Hell, I think she could have willingly consented and then changed her mind halfway through and said stop and dude should jump off the bed immediately.

And I personally think this guy was far too aggressive and I am willing to believe that she did "freeze" during the act and was afraid to protest.

Where the grey area exists for me is what was going on the in the head of the dude. I can't say from the OP whether he thought he was being a romantic, take-charge guy or whether he was trying to quickly and forcefully close the deal. Had she said no at any point during or after being carried up to her room, then this would be a slam-dunk case of date rape. By not doing so, she might not have hit this dude over the head with the fact that he was crossing a line.

So all I am saying is I allow for the possibility that this dude was just missing signals that seem clear in this thread. That possibility is enough for me not to call him a rapist based on the info we have. It does not in any way lessen the impact of this event on her or put her at blame for anything. But calling someone a rapist is a very serious charge and should exclude the possibility that the person in question was just a #######. And saying no, I don't want this would have excluded that possibility.

I think many people have pretty much said this but no one has expressed it as well as this, that or I am more calm now. I can't say for certain that he missed signs or not. I think it is possible but only slightly possible that is the case. I think that would be the excuse he would use however if ever confronted about this.

 

[Papa Georgio]

We can talk about mixed signals and all the mistakes the girl made during the night in question but the 2nd encounter shows similar behavior from the guy with no mixed signals from the girl.

Except for the fact that she called the guy up out of the blue a year later and she agrees to meet up with him before he leaves the country on a military assignment. Assuming the guy is a bit of a Neanderthal, he may have interpreted this as an expression of interest.

Yes I agree with this. However she insisted on a public place despite many attempts by him to get her to come to his house again. I know I didn't include this originally so I apologize if it seems like I am changing the story. Simply providing more information that now seems pertinent. I will add this now, she was going through a break up when she called him the 2nd time and told me she was lonely. I told her this meeting didn't make sense to me due to what she had told me took place. She said it didn't make sense to her either. She thought that maybe in her head it didn't happen how it felt to her. He had been someone for a month that she could trust and talk to. I guess much like some of you she was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt ( I know implies not rape and she has never said that it was) but I am not really sure this is mostly conjecture on my part. She said that he only confirmed that how she felt that night was accurate and that she was more "creeped out" after that meeting than she had ever been about him and the events that had taken place a year earlier.

Again I apologize for seemingly adding things but it was an hour long conversation and I was trying to avoid tldr situations. There is still a lot of information that I haven't included. I am not sure how much is relevant and how much isn't.

 

[Otis]

Wait, he kept asking the girl to come to his house again after she had sex with him there the first time? Sounds like rape to me.

 

[T Bell]

Without being too explicit, if you force yourself into a woman, and she doesn't want it, you're going to know, if you know what I mean. She's going to be dry, and the sex is going to be painful for her.

In addition, she's not going to move with you. If I was with a girl who wasn't moving during intercourse, I would know something was wrong and I would stop and ask her what's wrong.

She probably fell asleep reading your posts.

 

[jon_mx]

My advise would be to stay away from her. She is communicating with you in a trusting way probably because she wants a relationship with you. Unless you want to deal with the drama of this emotional roller-coaster, it is best to stay away from the situation.

 

[jon_mx]

Without being too explicit, if you force yourself into a woman, and she doesn't want it, you're going to know, if you know what I mean. She's going to be dry, and the sex is going to be painful for her.

In addition, she's not going to move with you. If I was with a girl who wasn't moving during intercourse, I would know something was wrong and I would stop and ask her what's wrong.

She probably fell asleep reading your posts.

Sounds like a situation Tim has dealt with many times

 

[Papa Georgio]

Wait, he kept asking the girl to come to his house again after she had sex with him there the first time? Sounds like rape to me.

Maybe you should focus on why the girl didn't want to go back to his house?

It's a good thing you have freakishly large hands to help you with this reach you made here.

 

[Bucky86]

Without being too explicit, if you force yourself into a woman, and she doesn't want it, you're going to know, if you know what I mean. She's going to be dry, and the sex is going to be painful for her.

In addition, she's not going to move with you. If I was with a girl who wasn't moving during intercourse, I would know something was wrong and I would stop and ask her what's wrong.

She probably fell asleep reading your posts.

Sounds like a situation Tim has dealt with many times

Timmy, mid-sex, would be like, "Want to do a sexual position draft with me?"

 

[Papa Georgio]

My advise would be to stay away from her. She is communicating with you in a trusting way probably because she wants a relationship with you. Unless you want to deal with the drama of this emotional roller-coaster, it is best to stay away from the situation.

I don't think this is the situation at all. I think she sees me as safe.

Unrelated to this post but I think she is older than some of you might have envisioned in your head.

 

[FUBAR]

Without being too explicit, if you force yourself into a woman, and she doesn't want it, you're going to know, if you know what I mean. She's going to be dry, and the sex is going to be painful for her.

In addition, she's not going to move with you. If I was with a girl who wasn't moving during intercourse, I would know something was wrong and I would stop and ask her what's wrong.

She probably fell asleep reading your posts.

Sounds like a situation Tim has dealt with many times

Timmy, mid-sex, would be like, "Want to do a sexual position draft with me?"

and never get around to judging.

 

[FUBAR]

My advise would be to stay away from her. She is communicating with you in a trusting way probably because she wants a relationship with you. Unless you want to deal with the drama of this emotional roller-coaster, it is best to stay away from the situation.

I don't think this is the situation at all. I think she sees me as safe.

Unrelated to this post but I think she is older than some of you might have envisioned in your head.

That doesn't help your cause here.

 

[FUBAR]

And why is who initiated the activity relevant if the question is whether the people involved had the legal capacity to consent?

Thankfully the last question is mostly academic as, usually, if they're both that intoxicated, not much happens. We're talking really drunk here, usually the person couldn't function.

Oh, bull####.

This isn't a DUI or even a legal contract standard.

Not to say the situation never happens, but it's rare. (or at least isn't reported often)

 

[Papa Georgio]

My advise would be to stay away from her. She is communicating with you in a trusting way probably because she wants a relationship with you. Unless you want to deal with the drama of this emotional roller-coaster, it is best to stay away from the situation.

I don't think this is the situation at all. I think she sees me as safe.Unrelated to this post but I think she is older than some of you might have envisioned in your head.

That doesn't help your cause here.

Don't have a cause I just thought most think she was a 20 year old college student when this happened.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

Gotta agree with Otis at this point. "Affirmative consent" is the feminist version of "abstinence-only" sex ed in that they both share a completely unrealistic, ideological approach to sex.

I'm not suggesting in any way affirmative consent is required. But, you know, there's a pretty huge ocean between, "is it okay if I kiss you" to "Is it okay if I push you down on this bed and hold you down while I roughly #### you, even though we haven't had sex at all yet?"

You should really think hard on the latter.

Sorry, I should have been more clear about the point I was addressing. I posted earlier in the thread that I think this was probably a rape because of the pinning-her-down-after-she-resists part, so I agree with you on that one.

I just wanted to chime in on how silly the affirmative consent standard is. You would think that all adults would realize that this isn't how sex works, but apparently not.

We're not talking about "how sex works" but how "hooking up works". It is pretty clear women have problems with how the latter is going.

I'm old and a little out of it, but I'm fairly sure hooking up involves sex.

It also seems to involve an uncomfortable amount of rape. Maybe there are some aspects of it we should not be encouraging in culture and the law.

That's exactly what I mean when I say that an affirmative consent standard is an overly-ideological response to sex. People get it in their head that folks should really get a clear "yes" prior to each stage of sexual activity. That's a nice idea in theory, and I agree with it as a principle. But it's also not how sex works, especially among young, immature, and usually intoxicated college-aged couples. Re-writing the law to require affirmative consent, or brow-beating universities into adopting such a standard, just has the effect of turning a majority of college students -- both men and women -- into rapists in the eyes of the law. That trivializes actual sexual violence, damages the credibility of the law itself, and imposes real harm on people who didn't do anything wrong other than living their lives in manner that you disapprove of.

Like I said earlier, if we were talking about abstinence-only sex ed, everybody would agree that basing policy on a patently unrealistic view of human behavior isn't a good idea. This is the same thing, only from a different ideology.

IK - you raise a few points here that should be discussed further. I'm just asking your opinions here (and anyone else who wants to chime in) Taking this outside the scope of the OP. Frankly, I find this topic interesting and want to get away from parsing the OP's post.

- How would you treat intoxication of either party? The stereotype of course and from what I've seen, the norm when it gets to a prosecutor, is the female may be intoxicated to the extent that she lacks the mental capacity to consent. It's possible for the guy (or other female) to be intoxicated to that degree as well, which obviously is problematic, especially as voluntary intoxication isn't a defense. Evaluating whether the "victim" is unable to consent is almost always the key to a case, there's no definitive line.

- What is your point on the Universities accepting a standard? IIRC, universities don't make a person into a criminal in the eyes of the law. They might get expelled.

If intoxication to the point one cannot legally consent is the standard for becoming a victim and both parties are intoxicated to that point they are both victims. If the prosecutor is inclined to not prosecute both then there is no crime. It would seem to require the same conclusion on the administrative level as well.

Interesting perspective.

I agree with Christo. If somebody is passed out and you do something sexual with them, that is clearly rape, no question. What I hear too often, though, is that having sex with an intoxicated (but functioning) person is also rape, and that's a horrible standard to use. It either sets up a situation where two people have each raped the other (a reductio ad absurdum) or that standard is applied selectively to men but not to women (sexist).

Should young people have sex with casual acquaintances while drunk? No, that's not a good idea. But that's the reality of college life, and criminalizing it is not the right answer.

 

[FUBAR]

I agree with Christo. If somebody is passed out and you do something sexual with them, that is clearly rape, no question. What I hear too often, though, is that having sex with an intoxicated (but functioning) person is also rape, and that's a horrible standard to use. It either sets up a situation where two people have each raped the other (a reductio ad absurdum) or that standard is applied selectively to men but not to women (sexist).

Should young people have sex with casual acquaintances while drunk? No, that's not a good idea. But that's the reality of college life, and criminalizing it is not the right answer.

I won't disagree, but Congress clearly has.

 

[jon_mx]

I guess the only logic to charging the drunk man with rape and not the drunk women, it is fairly reasonable to expect the man would have consented even if he was sober. IMHO, if a person willing gets drunk, I would have a hard time with convicting someone of raping that person unless they were passed out drunk. But I don't write the laws. We need breathalyzers and consent forms to be safe these days.

 

[Christo]

I agree with Christo. If somebody is passed out and you do something sexual with them, that is clearly rape, no question. What I hear too often, though, is that having sex with an intoxicated (but functioning) person is also rape, and that's a horrible standard to use. It either sets up a situation where two people have each raped the other (a reductio ad absurdum) or that standard is applied selectively to men but not to women (sexist).

Should young people have sex with casual acquaintances while drunk? No, that's not a good idea. But that's the reality of college life, and criminalizing it is not the right answer.

I won't disagree, but Congress clearly has.

Congress can go #### themselves. Drunk or sober.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I'm trying to get handle on something here, are there people here that think we have a problem with too many innocent guys being accused of rape by women, either with or without malicious intent?

Obviously there's a huge degree of subjectivity around how often this would need to happen to be a "problem." Any guy being wrongly accused is problematic, just trying to get a sense of whether people feel this is a bigger issue than women victimized by men?

Eta: typing on phone, sorry for spelling errors

 

[dparker713]

I'm trying to get handle on something here, are there people here that think we have a problem with too many innocent guys being accused of rape by women, either with or without malicious intent?

Obviously there's a huge degree of subjectivity around how often this would need to happen to be a "problem." Any guy being wrongly accused is problematic, just trying to get a sense of whether people feel this is a bigger issue than women victimized by men?

Eta: typing on phone, sorry for spelling errors

Hurting one group to help another isn't really solving the problem, its just shifting the burden.

 

[jon_mx]

Without being too explicit, if you force yourself into a woman, and she doesn't want it, you're going to know, if you know what I mean. She's going to be dry, and the sex is going to be painful for her.

In addition, she's not going to move with you. If I was with a girl who wasn't moving during intercourse, I would know something was wrong and I would stop and ask her what's wrong.

She probably fell asleep reading your posts.

Sounds like a situation Tim has dealt with many times

Timmy, mid-sex, would be like, "Want to do a sexual position draft with me?"

1.01 Reverse Cowgirl.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I'm trying to get handle on something here, are there people here that think we have a problem with too many innocent guys being accused of rape by women, either with or without malicious intent?

Obviously there's a huge degree of subjectivity around how often this would need to happen to be a "problem." Any guy being wrongly accused is problematic, just trying to get a sense of whether people feel this is a bigger issue than women victimized by men?

Eta: typing on phone, sorry for spelling errors

Hurting one group to help another isn't really solving the problem, its just shifting the burden.

That's not what I asked, I'm legitimately curious what people think and I'm not even sure one could get to good statistics for this. I have an intuitive idea but want know what others think.

 

[tommyboy]

I agree with Christo. If somebody is passed out and you do something sexual with them, that is clearly rape, no question. What I hear too often, though, is that having sex with an intoxicated (but functioning) person is also rape, and that's a horrible standard to use. It either sets up a situation where two people have each raped the other (a reductio ad absurdum) or that standard is applied selectively to men but not to women (sexist).

Should young people have sex with casual acquaintances while drunk? No, that's not a good idea. But that's the reality of college life, and criminalizing it is not the right answer.

I won't disagree, but Congress clearly has.

when did Congress do this? Link?

 

[jon_mx]

I'm trying to get handle on something here, are there people here that think we have a problem with too many innocent guys being accused of rape by women, either with or without malicious intent?

Obviously there's a huge degree of subjectivity around how often this would need to happen to be a "problem." Any guy being wrongly accused is problematic, just trying to get a sense of whether people feel this is a bigger issue than women victimized by men?

Eta: typing on phone, sorry for spelling errors

Hurting one group to help another isn't really solving the problem, its just shifting the burden.

That's not what I asked, I'm legitimately curious what people think and I'm not even sure one could get to good statistics for this. I have an intuitive idea but want know what others think.

FBI puts it somewhere between 2 to 8% of cases are a result of false accusations of rape.

 

[tommyboy]

I guess the only logic to charging the drunk man with rape and not the drunk women, it is fairly reasonable to expect the man would have consented even if he was sober. IMHO, if a person willing gets drunk, I would have a hard time with convicting someone of raping that person unless they were passed out drunk. But I don't write the laws. We need breathalyzers and consent forms to be safe these days.

sign this, and then i'll put my #### in you. Oh by the way, this is all being videotaped

 

[NCCommish]

I'm trying to get handle on something here, are there people here that think we have a problem with too many innocent guys being accused of rape by women, either with or without malicious intent?

Obviously there's a huge degree of subjectivity around how often this would need to happen to be a "problem." Any guy being wrongly accused is problematic, just trying to get a sense of whether people feel this is a bigger issue than women victimized by men?

Eta: typing on phone, sorry for spelling errors

Certainly there are false reports. It's one of the worst things a woman can do IMO. It hurts every other woman with a legitimate complaint. In general I don't think very many women ever try to get an innocent guy jailed for rape. In fact women under report if studies are to be believed.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

For the record, as I've said before, I think things like consent contracts are silly and affirmative consent is clumsy and impractical, if well intentioned.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I'm trying to get handle on something here, are there people here that think we have a problem with too many innocent guys being accused of rape by women, either with or without malicious intent?

Currently? No. But there very clearly is a movement afoot to shift the responsibility for investigating sexual assault away from the legal system, which is weighed down by anachronisms like the rule of law, reasonable doubt, and trials by a jury of one's peers, toward panels run by college administrators which can more efficiently railroad people. Obviously the consequences aren't the same, since getting expelled from college isn't like going to prison. But it's still an unjust response to what is admittedly a real problem.

 

[Clifford]

I'm trying to get handle on something here, are there people here that think we have a problem with too many innocent guys being accused of rape by women, either with or without malicious intent?

Obviously there's a huge degree of subjectivity around how often this would need to happen to be a "problem." Any guy being wrongly accused is problematic, just trying to get a sense of whether people feel this is a bigger issue than women victimized by men?

Eta: typing on phone, sorry for spelling errors

Certainly there are false reports. It's one of the worst things a woman can do IMO. It hurts every other woman with a legitimate complaint. In general I don't think very many women ever try to get an innocent guy jailed for rape. In fact women under report if studies are to be believed.

Agree. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise.

I think this particular case has a lot of grey area especially since we are hearing it second hand years removed from the incident.

 

[FUBAR]

I agree with Christo. If somebody is passed out and you do something sexual with them, that is clearly rape, no question. What I hear too often, though, is that having sex with an intoxicated (but functioning) person is also rape, and that's a horrible standard to use. It either sets up a situation where two people have each raped the other (a reductio ad absurdum) or that standard is applied selectively to men but not to women (sexist).

Should young people have sex with casual acquaintances while drunk? No, that's not a good idea. But that's the reality of college life, and criminalizing it is not the right answer.

I won't disagree, but Congress clearly has.

when did Congress do this? Link?

http://www.apd.army.mil/pdffiles/mcm.pdf

 

[FUBAR]

I'm trying to get handle on something here, are there people here that think we have a problem with too many innocent guys being accused of rape by women, either with or without malicious intent?

Obviously there's a huge degree of subjectivity around how often this would need to happen to be a "problem." Any guy being wrongly accused is problematic, just trying to get a sense of whether people feel this is a bigger issue than women victimized by men?

Eta: typing on phone, sorry for spelling errors

Frankly, there's a problem with the frequency of sexual assault, false reports, and fear to report. We've been fighting this for a while now.

Colleges and local communities are slowly catching up.

 

[Arsenal of Doom]

I'm trying to get handle on something here, are there people here that think we have a problem with too many innocent guys being accused of rape by women, either with or without malicious intent?

Obviously there's a huge degree of subjectivity around how often this would need to happen to be a "problem." Any guy being wrongly accused is problematic, just trying to get a sense of whether people feel this is a bigger issue than women victimized by men?

Eta: typing on phone, sorry for spelling errors

Frankly, there's a problem with the frequency of sexual assault, false reports, and fear to report. We've been fighting this for a while now.

Colleges and local communities are slowly catching up.

Tough issue all around. I've had many close acquaintances over the years that have been directly affected. So much fear, guilt, and shame involved, and really no good outcomes.

What do you do btw? I think I had it in my notebook at one time but can't recall. Your comments in this thread make it seem you are professionally close to the issue.

 

[No. 16]

I'm trying to get handle on something here, are there people here that think we have a problem with too many innocent guys being accused of rape by women, either with or without malicious intent?

Currently? No. But there very clearly is a movement afoot to shift the responsibility for investigating sexual assault away from the legal system, which is weighed down by anachronisms like the rule of law, reasonable doubt, and trials by a jury of one's peers, toward panels run by college administrators which can more efficiently railroad people. Obviously the consequences aren't the same, since getting expelled from college isn't like going to prison. But it's still an unjust response to what is admittedly a real problem.

Agree with this.

I mean this thread is a perfect example of circumstances that happen regularly in college and post college with those who are dating and that's not even including the effects of alcohol.

I like to believe most people in the world are truly good. I also like to believe that most people know what rape is. So when cases come up where the victim doesn't immediately associate it as rape, but instead needs 3rd parties to lead them to that conclusion, it's hard for me to jump to the conclusion that the man/woman is a rapist. It just seems more likely the "victim" just end up regretting the experience the morning after, rather, than being with someone who raped them.

I know there are people who respond to trauma through denial so it is always a possibility, but I guess I'd just like to think most of the guys in this world are good people.

 

[NCCommish]

I'm trying to get handle on something here, are there people here that think we have a problem with too many innocent guys being accused of rape by women, either with or without malicious intent?

Obviously there's a huge degree of subjectivity around how often this would need to happen to be a "problem." Any guy being wrongly accused is problematic, just trying to get a sense of whether people feel this is a bigger issue than women victimized by men?

Eta: typing on phone, sorry for spelling errors

Certainly there are false reports. It's one of the worst things a woman can do IMO. It hurts every other woman with a legitimate complaint. In general I don't think very many women ever try to get an innocent guy jailed for rape. In fact women under report if studies are to be believed.

Agree. I don't think anyone has suggested otherwise.

I think this particular case has a lot of grey area especially since we are hearing it second hand years removed from the incident.

Right it's the gray that causes pause here.

I have a friend who was raped and there was no doubt. Guy was a friend we all knew. He broke into her place and confronted her in her bedroom in the middle of the night. He suggested if she didn't go along quietly he would visit her 12 year old daughters room next. So she let him do his thing and leave. She was scared to death to be alone there at night for quite a while. I slept on her couch for weeks with a gun very handy. Only way she could sleep at all. Finally the guy was arrested and discharged from the military. He went home to Alaska and only then did she start to feel at all safe. I wish he had come back for seconds while I was there. I would have made sure there was no recidivism on his part going forward.

I can really identify with PG here. I wanted to kill that guy and I mean literally hunt him down and kill him. I didn't because I was convinced by her not to go to jail over it. I did get to screw him over though. I also went to Alaska. And while I was there I ran into his lovely redheaded wife who he had working as dancer so he could sit at home. She and I always liked each other and by now she really disliked him. She didn't believe he raped our friend until he got her away from everyone and then she saw how he really was. Slept with her for about a month before convincing her to leave him and go back home. He wasn't happy when she did just that. But I was.

 

[tommyboy]

I'm trying to get handle on something here, are there people here that think we have a problem with too many innocent guys being accused of rape by women, either with or without malicious intent?

Obviously there's a huge degree of subjectivity around how often this would need to happen to be a "problem." Any guy being wrongly accused is problematic, just trying to get a sense of whether people feel this is a bigger issue than women victimized by men?

Eta: typing on phone, sorry for spelling errors

Frankly, there's a problem with the frequency of sexual assault, false reports, and fear to report. We've been fighting this for a while now.

Colleges and local communities are slowly catching up.

yeah, its a problem that has been falling since 1994, after rising for some time. here's the stats vs population growth since 1960 http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm

 

[FUBAR]

I'm trying to get handle on something here, are there people here that think we have a problem with too many innocent guys being accused of rape by women, either with or without malicious intent?

Obviously there's a huge degree of subjectivity around how often this would need to happen to be a "problem." Any guy being wrongly accused is problematic, just trying to get a sense of whether people feel this is a bigger issue than women victimized by men?

Eta: typing on phone, sorry for spelling errors

Frankly, there's a problem with the frequency of sexual assault, false reports, and fear to report. We've been fighting this for a while now.

Colleges and local communities are slowly catching up.

Tough issue all around. I've had many close acquaintances over the years that have been directly affected. So much fear, guilt, and shame involved, and really no good outcomes.What do you do btw? I think I had it in my notebook at one time but can't recall. Your comments in this thread make it seem you are professionally close to the issue.

Army JAG, very professionally close to this issue.

 

[Papa Georgio]

Ok so I have another situation I have always wondered about. I am interested in hearing what everyone thinks about this one.

When I was 18 I was staying with my girl friends older brother. He was much older that I was, I think about 30. Anyway he was a rounder and always having people over. One night I had a buddy over and we hear some noises from down stairs. We look over the edge of the stairs and on the couch is my girl friends brother (let's just call him Magnum PI) and some girl I'd say closer to my age than his. It was clear she had been drinking. So they are starting to do some heavy petting and the girl starts saying no...a lot. Pretty much everything he tries she says no. He tries to go up her shirt and she moves his hand and says she can't, he tries again just a little bit later and she stops him and again says no. Over time though he has her naked on the couch. She is refusing sex. He is trying to sweet talk her but she continues to say no. After some time of this they are having sex. The entire time she is saying things like we shouldn't be doing this, stop, all the while they keep having sex. She is into it at times, she seems to be moving right. She had many chances to get up off the couch while he was bargaining. She never did though. Typical guy though right as he gets his she says they should stop and he says something like, "oh you want to stop...ok I'm sorry." She stayed the night and slept on the floor while he took the couch. They date for about 2 months after this. A side note is that he had Cameo playing on repeat so we had to hear that play the entire time this is going on.

Me and my buddy really only talked about how hot she was and how Magnum was a lucky guy at the time.

Many years later me and that same buddy that was with me that night were hanging out and "Word Up" by Cameo comes on. We both look at each other and almost at the same time we ask each other if we saw someone get raped that night.