VA - Freshman daughter, mom 'good time drop off' outrages VA university

[BritsKate]

If the male had been on top and having sex with an unconscious woman, NONE of the posters here would have taken his side if he said she had consented.

No, katy, NONE of the posters here would have taken his side because of what he said if roles were reversed. Had she stated she wasn't victimized, she wasn't raped, and she did engage in consensual sex before she passed out, most if not all would accept that.

It so isn't about gender - it's about victimization, pure and simple. At least it is for me and several other rape survivors I've met.

 

[katydid23]

No, katy, NONE of the posters here would have taken his side because of what he said if roles were reversed. Had she stated she wasn't victimized, she wasn't raped, and she did engage in consensual sex before she passed out, most if not all would accept that.

It so isn't about gender - it's about victimization, pure and simple. At least it is for me and several other rape survivors I've met.

Then what about all of this AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT stuff that has been talked about here? How can an UNCONSCIOUS female give ongoing AFFIRMATIVE CONSENT?

I specifically discussed a hypothetical example of a consensual sexual action, in which the female passed out. EVERYONE here was outraged that a male would continue having sex with her and most said it was rape if he did so. It is rather surprising now to hear people saying it is NOT rape if the victim claims they consented. Because people were very clear that DRUNK partners could not give consent.

So I am surprised to hear the explanations being given now for why this is not a sexual assault. People are saying it is not assault because the victim is not charging assault. I disagree with that logic. LEGALLY it IS ASSAULT. It does not matter if someone comes forward to press charges or not. That does not mean it is legal to have sex with an unconscious drunk person just because they don't press charges.

 

[Donjeta]

I don't think there is any debate whether Earl was unable to express ongoing affirmative consent while he was passed out. Clearly he wasn't, being passed out tends to do that to you.

But if he says he was happy with what happened anyway and it was consensual as far as he is concerned, how does he benefit from the police telling him "no it wasn't, you were raped"?

The police isn't going out of their way to prosecute men who had sex with their passed out girlfriends either if the women do not consider themselves a victim of crime.

While it might qualify as rape legally, it is extremely difficult to get a conviction from a jury if you have the victim testifying that they think it was consensual sex.

If both parties agree that they both agreed, I don't think many males get charged and convicted either.

If this is some seriously troubled alcoholic couple, sex while both partners are substantially impaired and unable to appraise the nature of their conduct might be more the norm than an exception. If so I hope it's a wake up call and they seek help for their addictions.

 

[katydid23]

Here are some replies upthread, to the hypothetical of two college students having consensual foreplay, leading up to consensual sex, and then the female passes out. I said it should not be considered rape if the male kept going.

My hypothetical:

Of course NO means NO. But it is very unfair and even mean behavior on the girls part to get into bed, drunk, with a drunk teen boy, mess around sexually, get things going, then go to sleep. It is not that simple for a drunk teen boy to follow those rules. I am not saying he shouldn't, just saying it is unfair for girls to set up that type of situation.

If you go to a boys room and get drunk with him and climb into his bed and begin doing sexual acts, [ before falling asleep]then I cannot call it rape. You are giving him a total green light. It is hard for me to call him a rapist in that situation. JMO
post#69

Here were some of the replies:

Post # 78
Donjeta
If someone is asleep, it's cut and dry to me. You just don't have sex with someone who is sleeping. Sleeping is not a mixed signal, it's a NO. JMO.



#97
flourish
Wow, did you never make out without having sex? It's fun, and reasonable to expect in a relationship, even if you have been married for years. Is there some epidemic of drunk girls crawling into bed with a drunk guy then leaving him with blue ba!!$? And if so, even if it's a premeditated, purely on purpose "teasing," even if the girls had a freaking online group whose sole purpose was "tease and pass out," (NOT REAl, just making a point), IT IS NOT OKAY TO HAVE SEX WITH AN UNCONSCIOUS PERSON. No matter how horny you may be!!!

post#152
sorrel skye
Regardless of the location, it is more than "technically" rape. It is definitively rape if one partner says "no" or is incapable of affirming consent due to intoxication - even if heavy petting occurs prior to saying "no".

Even if one or both partners are naked or semi-clothed, if one partner says "no" or is incapable of affirming consent due to incapacitation from alcohol or drug ingestion, it is still definitively rape.

This is what we need to teach our young people - women and men alike.

post #153



Why would a guy believe he has the go-ahead for sex with an unconscious girl, unless he's a sexual predator?

An unconscious person cannot give consent. This scenario is classified as sexual assault, regardless of whether or not prior heavy petting occurred and regardless of whether or not the victim willingly got into his bed before passing out or going to sleep.

Post # 166
bluesneakers
How can you give consent when you're asleep?

Post #207
LinasK
Granted some women place themselves in unwise situations. Nonetheless, men, although mammals are not actually physically wolves. They are able to control themselves physically if they choose to. They need to learn that if a girl falls asleep- in their bed or anyplace- consent is automatically withdrawn. Yeah, they're disappointed, but so what? Go take care of it yourself.

Post #322
LinasK
Without being literal, yes it does. It has to be consensual or it is a sexual attack. The minute one person starts to feel uncomfortable at any point, or loses consciousness, or is unaware what is going to happen, is the minute where if the other person continues it becomes an attack/rape. If a person changes their mind or falls asleep is the point where you stop. If you are disappointed, too bad!


Post # 364
Gitana1

Let me be clear:

Yes, it is rape if it involves sexual penetration/sodomy of a person who cannot consent due to being a minor, or passed out or otherwise too incapacitated by drugs or alcohol to know what they're doing.

 

[katydid23]

As shown above, people were ADAMANT that having sexual relations with an unconscious person is RAPE. But now suddenly, when this case was posted, everyone says it is not rape if the male does not feel violated. Why didn't anyone say that about the female victim in my hypothetical. People said the opposite. No matter what the female said or thought, it was considered RAPE once she passed out. Interesting that no one expresses any of that same outrage with this specific case.

And NEVER in my hypothetical did I say the female claimed she was raped. Even without saying that , everyone here claimed it was RAPE, cut and dry. No question about it. No one said it was only rape if she charged him with it or if she claimed it was. The assumption and description of the sexual incident was that it was RAPE. If she was unconscious then it was RAPE--no doubt about it.

 

[katydid23]

In this case, the 'victim' (who doesn't consider himself a victim) insists that he gave his consent, and has not suggested that he thinks the sex was not consensual. I think it should be his right to say if he consented to something or not, and in this case, he says that he did.

It was NOT his 'right' to say if he consented because he was UNCONSCIOUS. The law is very clear that an impaired partner CANNOT legally consent.

 

[Donjeta]

As shown above, people were ADAMANT that having sexual relations with an unconscious person is RAPE. But now suddenly, when this case was posted, everyone says it is not rape if the male does not feel violated. Why didn't anyone say that about the female victim in my hypothetical. People said the opposite. No matter what the female said or thought, it was considered RAPE once she passed out. Interesting that no one expresses any of that same outrage with this specific case.

And NEVER in my hypothetical did I say the female claimed she was raped. Even without saying that , everyone here claimed it was RAPE, cut and dry. No question about it. No one said it was only rape if she charged him with it or if she claimed it was. The assumption and description of the sexual incident was that it was RAPE. If she was unconscious then it was RAPE--no doubt about it.

Well I think taken in the context of the discussion of females claiming they were raped, it was more or less taken for granted that she'd say she didn't want it or that she was raped. Usually you only get the debates whether it was rape or not when one of the parties says they didn't want it and they think they were raped. If no one feels violated afterwards the question doesn't even come up. If Kim and Earl had been in private we wouldn't be talking about this. I imagine they'd have gone on their merry way, Earl might have apologized for falling asleep in the middle of intercourse, they'd have had another round of hungover sex and it probably wouldn't be the first or the last horribly drunk and impaired sex they had and in the context of their relationship they might consider it OK.

But yeah, let's say that the female in your hypothetical scenario is all, "great party such sex wow", and does not feel like a victim, then there is imo no reason for the legal system to try to force feed that feeling to her. I do believe in that case the authorities would do exactly the same as they're doing about what Kim did to Earl: nothing.

In the ideal case, getting the perp prosecuted empowers the victim and makes him or her feel like they got justice. But there are enough rapes that go unprosecuted even though the victim wants the perp to get their punishment that there is not much incentive to press charges for the cases where the person who might be called victim insists it was all good and no crime happened.


Anyway, the way I understood the hypothetical, the question was partly about whether the guy had the right to assume consent to intercourse and the green light go right to ahead if the girl was in his bed and did something that could be considered consensual foreplay before passing out. Consent to foreplay does not imply automatic consent to go all the way and feeling like the other person teased you gives you no right to do something they did not consent to. It's all part of respecting their boundaries and not taking consent for granted just because you want it. (And it helps to avoid rape trials.)

But I think respecting a person's sexual autonomy also requires a certain degree of respect to what they say and think about the consensuality of their sexual encounters. People have different boundaries in their relationships and some people are okay with getting tied up, doing it rough, having drunk sex with strangers, being called names and ordered around etc. while other people might feel very distressed and violated if it ever happened to them. If Earl or the girl in your hypothetical says they were raped, I'm going to take it seriously - but if they say that they were not sexually assaulted, I think it might not be my place to start arguing with them. Why should I try to convince them that they were victims of rape if they think they had a good time with a hot partner, too bad they don't remember more about it?

In the end I think the intent of the laws is to give the victims of sexual assault a chance to get justice for their distress, not to make victims out of people who think it was consensual. If you think you had consensual sex with your girlfriend or boyfriend and then the sheriff steps in and says, no it was a rape, we're going to butt into your private lives now and take your rapist boyfriend/girlfriend to jail, it would only cause you more distress, not alleviate any.

 

[katydid23]

"Anyway, the way I understood the hypothetical, the question was partly about whether the guy had the right to assume consent to intercourse and the green light go right to ahead if the girl was in his bed and did something that could be considered consensual foreplay before passing out. Consent to foreplay does not imply automatic consent to go all the way and feeling like the other person teased you gives you no right to do something they did not consent to. It's all part of respecting their boundaries and not taking consent for granted just because you want it. (And it helps to avoid rape trials.)"

But didn't everyone pretty much agree it was RAPE once the male had sex with an unconscious female, no matter what she said or didn't say. It was never discussed whether she had a problem with it---it was 'cut and dry' that it was RAPE once she passed out.

I would just like some here to acknowledge the obvious double standard when it comes to gender roles in these cases. People are quick to give Earl the chance to consent, even though legally he is not capable of doing so.

 

[katydid23]

"In the end I think the intent of the laws is to give the victims of sexual assault a chance to get justice for their distress, not to make victims out of people who think it was consensual and cause them distress."


And this ^^^ is where the problem lies, imo. By fashioning the laws in such a way that the 'victims' are 'given the chance to get justice' it automatically TAKES AWAY some of the important ' due process' rights of the accused.

This murky, muddled, lack of clarity surrounding when a drunk person can or cannot consent stacks the deck against the male partner. At any time, even years later, a woman can accuse him of rape, if she can show she was drinking. That is all she needs to show because it nullifies her consent, even if she gave it.

Look at how angry many people were at the thought of a male continuing to have sex with a woman, who was WILLINGLY in his bed and having consensual sexual foreplay. Once she fell asleep then he was labeled a sexual predator, a RAPIST, no doubt about it.

But then we see a woman, actually having sex with an unconscious man, in broad daylight on the street, and no one has an issue with it because they shrug and say he wanted it---so no problem.

 

[Donjeta]

Well, you know, legally, unconscious people are off the limits, no matter which sex they are. If you want to protect unconscious people you can't make a law that says, "you can't have sex with unconscious people, only it's ok if the person says it's ok once they wake up". That would be too iffy and open to interpretation.

But I think there is no double standard in that if the person wakes up and says "hey it's fine, I was not raped, I do not consider myself to be a victim of sexual assault, I wanted it although I passed out in the middle and sorry I was not able to finish, and as far as I'm concerned we're good", few people are going to insist that rape charges must be pressed, whether it's a man or a woman.

I kind of feel that even though I frown on having sex with unconscious people, both Earl and your hypothetical female and other people who ended up unconscious in the middle of a sexual encounter need to have the right to decide that they aren't victims if that's what they feel. I want to stand up for the victims, but not force victim status on anyone who doesn't want it.

 

[katydid23]

Well, you know, legally, unconscious people are off the limits, no matter which sex they are. If you want to protect unconscious people you can't make a law that says, "you can't have sex with unconscious people, only it's ok if the person says it's ok once they wake up". That would be too iffy and open to interpretation.

But I think there is no double standard in that if the person wakes up and says "hey it's fine, I was not raped, I do not consider myself to be a victim of sexual assault, I wanted it although I passed out in the middle and sorry I was not able to finish, and as far as I'm concerned we're good", few people are going to insist that rape charges must be pressed, whether it's a man or a woman.

I kind of feel that even though I frown on having sex with unconscious people, both Earl and your hypothetical female and other people who ended up unconscious in the middle of a sexual encounter need to have the right to decide that they aren't victims if that's what they feel. I want to stand up for the victims, but not force victim status on anyone who doesn't want it.

So then you no longer believe this:



Post # 78
Donjeta
If someone is asleep, it's cut and dry to me. You just don't have sex with someone who is sleeping. Sleeping is not a mixed signal, it's a NO. JMO.

You seemed pretty adamant about that. Now you are saying it is OK to have sex with a sleeping person, as long as they wake up later and say 'it's cool' ?

 

[RANCH]

If Earl changes his mind and says he didn't give consent, can Kimberly be charged with rape?

 

[Donjeta]

"In the end I think the intent of the laws is to give the victims of sexual assault a chance to get justice for their distress, not to make victims out of people who think it was consensual and cause them distress."


And this ^^^ is where the problem lies, imo. By fashioning the laws in such a way that the 'victims' are 'given the chance to get justice' it automatically TAKES AWAY some of the important ' due process' rights of the accused.

This murky, muddled, lack of clarity surrounding when a drunk person can or cannot consent stacks the deck against the male partner. At any time, even years later, a woman can accuse him of rape, if she can show she was drinking. That is all she needs to show because it nullifies her consent, even if she gave it.

Look at how angry many people were at the thought of a male continuing to have sex with a woman, who was WILLINGLY in his bed and having consensual sexual foreplay. Once she fell asleep then he was labeled a sexual predator, a RAPIST, no doubt about it.

But then we see a woman, actually having sex with an unconscious man, in broad daylight on the street, and no one has an issue with it because they shrug and say he wanted it---so no problem.

I don't see really see this as a gender issue. Yeah, Earl has a penis here, but nothing stops him from filing charges for sexual assault, now, or later (within the statute of limitations) He would IMO have a better chance to win the case than many other (female) victims because it appears that there are plenty of witnesses and photographic evidence that the sexual event took place and it also appears well confirmed that he was passed out, so he can easily argue that he was unable to consent. That is basically all he needs to say to nullify his consent, if any, despite not being a female.

So now he is on the record for saying that it was consensual but that can be explained away if he says he felt under pressure to save Kim from rape charges, he felt guilty for getting so drunk and allowing it to happen in the first place.

Anyway, as far as consensual foreplay goes, do we have any reason to assume Earl didn't have that too? If Earl is saying that he's sorry he wasn't able to finish, I take it he means that prior to passing out he was awake and willingly taking part of some of whatever they did.

There is hardly any point complaining that male rape victims such as Earl aren't getting justice if they're not seeking it.

And as far as drunk females getting men convicted for rape years later even though they consented to sex originally, I don't believe it's as automatic as you make it seem. Rape cases are notoriously difficult to prove since usually it's just a he said she said.

 

[RANCH]

In many domestic violence cases the victim will call the police and when they see their significant other is about to be arrested deny that the perpetrator did anything wrong. LE will arrest the person anyway if there's evidence a crime has been committed.

Why couldn't LE arrest Kimberly for rape on the same basis?

JMO.

 

[Donjeta]

If Earl changes his mind and says he didn't give consent, can Kimberly be charged with rape?

I don't see why not. There seems to be everything they need, photos, witnesses, all except a cooperative victim. If he changes his mind, they'll have that too.

 

[RANCH]

I thought that any prior consent ends when a person becomes unconscious. Seems that Kimberly continued sexual activity without consent to me.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

I thought that any prior consent ends when a person becomes unconscious. Seems that Kimberly continued sexual activity without consent to me.

JMO

Exactly right. But a few here are saying it's no big deal because Earl wanted it. Since Earl says he wanted to have sex people are giving the rapist a pass. I think that is pretty hypocritical.

 

[Donjeta]

So then you no longer believe this:



Post # 78
Donjeta
If someone is asleep, it's cut and dry to me. You just don't have sex with someone who is sleeping. Sleeping is not a mixed signal, it's a NO. JMO.

You seemed pretty adamant about that. Now you are saying it is OK to have sex with a sleeping person, as long as they wake up later and say 'it's cool' ?

I don't see it as a contradiction, I see it as two different sides of a cube.

As a general rule it's not OK to have sex with an unconscious person. If you're a person who is planning to do that I'll have to put my foot down and insist that you don't. If you don't care about the sleeping person's feelings, think of yourself - you never know they're not going to call the police once they wake up. If you do it anyway and get charged for rape, I will shed no tears for you, you brought it on yourself and should have known better.

But if you're telling me that you were sleeping and someone had sex with you, I would try to take some of my cues from you... If you're crying and upset and feel raped and violated I would try to support you and help you reach out to people that can help you... But if you think it's fine and don't consider yourself victimised, "it was my husband/wife and we were having a good time and it was all consensual up until I fell asleep and if I had been awake I would have wanted it to continue too and it's not a problem whatsoever", I probably wouldn't call the police and report a rape on your behalf.

Rape is a loss of sexual autonomy but somehow I see it as another kind of loss of sexual autonomy if outsiders try to force you to feel like a rape victim if that's not how you feel.

 

[RANCH]

Exactly right. But a few here are saying it's no big deal because Earl wanted it. Since Earl says he wanted to have sex people are giving the rapist a pass. I think that is pretty hypocritical.

Yes. It seems that some are basing their opinions on the gender of the alleged victim and not the actions of the alleged perpetrator.

JMO

 

[katydid23]

I don't see it as a contradiction, I see it as two different sides of a cube.

As a general rule it's not OK to have sex with an unconscious person. If you're a person who is planning to do that I'll have to put my foot down and insist that you don't. If you don't care about the sleeping person's feelings, think of yourself - you never know they're not going to call the police once they wake up. If you do it anyway and get charged for rape, I will shed no tears for you, you brought it on yourself and should have known better.

But if you're telling me that you were sleeping and someone had sex with you, I would try to take some of my cues from you... If you're crying and upset and feel raped and violated I would try to support you and help you reach out to people that can help you... But if you think it's fine and don't consider yourself victimised, "it was my husband/wife and we were having a good time and it was all consensual up until I fell asleep and if I had been awake I would have wanted it to continue too and it's not a problem whatsoever", I probably wouldn't call the police and report a rape on your behalf.

Rape is a loss of sexual autonomy but somehow I see it as another kind of loss of sexual autonomy if outsiders try to force you to feel like a rape victim if that's not how you feel.

But if someone had sex with you in broad daylight, on the pavement parking lot, while you were unconscious, would that be a clue that it was problematic? It amazes me how quick everyone is to give Earl's rapist a pass here.