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

[katydid23]

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

I have absolutely no doubts that if Earl had been on top, and was having sex with an unconscious girlfriend, in broad daylight, EVERYONE here would be calling him a rapist and expecting him to be arrested. If the girlfriend said it was consensual people would be saying ' it cannot be because she was too impaired to consent.'

 

[RANCH]

I have absolutely no doubts that if Earl had been on top, and was having sex with an unconscious girlfriend, in broad daylight, EVERYONE here would be calling him a rapist and expecting him to be arrested. If the girlfriend said it was consensual people would be saying ' it cannot be because she was too impaired to consent.'

You are right. In fact I'm sure that the police would have seen it that way and would have arrested Earl for rape.

The police may be gender biased about this also.

JMO

 

[Donjeta]

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.

Well of course it's problematic in more ways than one. I don't think anyone was saying that it wasn't.

I think if the courts get involved in this, it might end up saving their lives... People in their mid thirties who get so drunk that they end up having sex in a crowded parking lot in the broad daylight heedless of anyone watching sound like they're having major problems and determined to drink themselves to death.

 

[Donjeta]

I have absolutely no doubts that if Earl had been on top, and was having sex with an unconscious girlfriend, in broad daylight, EVERYONE here would be calling him a rapist and expecting him to be arrested. If the girlfriend said it was consensual people would be saying ' it cannot be because she was too impaired to consent.'

It's kind of impossible for anyone to argue against hypothetical things that they never said but they are assumed they must have said, for sure, if things were different. How is anyone to prove that's not what they would have said?

You are right. In fact I'm sure that the police would have seen it that way and would have arrested Earl for rape.

The police may be gender biased about this also.

JMO

Possibly but it's also quite likely that the charges got dropped or negotiated down to public indecency or some such thing, if it became clear that the girlfriend was going to testify that it was consensual and she didn't mind. It's pretty difficult to find a jury that will unanimously convict a person for rape if the victim is saying he or she wasn't raped.

 

[katydid23]

Well of course it's problematic in more ways than one. I don't think anyone was saying that it wasn't.

I think if the courts get involved in this, it might end up saving their lives... People in their mid thirties who get so drunk that they end up having sex in a crowded parking lot in the broad daylight heedless of anyone watching sound like they're having major problems and determined to drink themselves to death.

But THEY weren't 'having sex.' He was unconscious. So she was raping him. I still do not understand why everyone is so hesitant to call it that.

You and I both know that if I came and told you that an unconscious woman was lying in the street and her boyfriend was on top of her, broad daylight, publicly having sex with her---You have to admit that you would call that RAPE---cut and dry, no doubt about it. Public sex with an unconscious woman====RAPE. No one would question if it was consensual. In fact, anyone who dared call it consensual would be called insulting and called out for even questioning it. OBVIOUSLY an unconscious woman cannot give her consent.

So it boggles my mind that everyone said the opposite about this case. They gave the rapist a pass and said it was not rape because the unconscious victim 'wanted it.' :no:

 

[katydid23]

It's kind of impossible for anyone to argue against hypothetical things that they never said but they are assumed they must have said, for sure, if things were different. How is anyone to prove that's not what they would have said?



Possibly but it's also quite likely that the charges got dropped or negotiated down to public indecency or some such thing, if it became clear that the girlfriend was going to testify that it was consensual and she didn't mind. It's pretty difficult to find a jury that will unanimously convict a person for rape if the victim is saying he or she wasn't raped.

[ I listed the previous comments that have been posted here about males having sex with 'sleeping' females. It was nearly unanimous that anyone having sex with an unconscious, drunk female is committing rape. Why would this case be any different? If she was unconscious and laying in the street in broad daylight while her boyfriend had sex with her, are you saying that is NOT rape?]

SHE CANNOT GIVE CONSENT IF SHE IS UNCONSCIOUS. It is not possible to give consent while fully impaired/unconscious.

 

[pghbrandi]

But THEY weren't 'having sex.' He was unconscious. So she was raping him. I still do not understand why everyone is so hesitant to call it that.

You and I both know that if I came and told you that an unconscious woman was lying in the street and her boyfriend was on top of her, broad daylight, publicly having sex with her---You have to admit that you would call that RAPE---cut and dry, no doubt about it. Public sex with an unconscious woman====RAPE. No one would question if it was consensual. In fact, anyone who dared call it consensual would be called insulting and called out for even questioning it. OBVIOUSLY an unconscious woman cannot give her consent.

So it boggles my mind that everyone said the opposite about this case. They gave the rapist a pass and said it was not rape because the unconscious victim 'wanted it.' :no:

I agree with you.
A male friend of mine was passed out drunk a few years ago. A girl had sex with him. She got pregnant from it. They now have a son. If it were reversed, my friend would be in jail right now.

 

[Donjeta]

But THEY weren't 'having sex.' He was unconscious. So she was raping him. I still do not understand why everyone is so hesitant to call it that.

Well, you know, I think it sounds like it qualifies as rape, but the people who are more familiar with the circumstances than I and whose opinion matters more than mine, Earl and the police are not treating it as such. Earl has been quite clear that he doesn't want Kim charged for rape and the police seem to be following his lead.

Anyway, Earl is saying that he consented to sex before he passed out in the middle so if we assume that he was able to consent up until passing out (not a given), there was a moment of "having sex" before it got into the rape territory.

He thinks they were just being spontaneous (in the video).

Meanwhile Palmer insisted that he had agreed to the spur-of-the moment romp but passed out from drinking.

'I'm here trying to clear her name and let them know I consented to that,' he said. 'I just didn't finish the job, as you could say.'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...parking-lot-broad-daylight.html#ixzz3lXLcpjyt
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


[/quote]

You and I both know that if I came and told you that an unconscious woman was lying in the street and her boyfriend was on top of her, broad daylight, publicly having sex with her---You have to admit that you would call that RAPE---cut and dry, no doubt about it. Public sex with an unconscious woman====RAPE. No one would question if it was consensual. In fact, anyone who dared call it consensual would be called insulting and called out for even questioning it. OBVIOUSLY an unconscious woman cannot give her consent.

So it boggles my mind that everyone said the opposite about this case. They gave the rapist a pass and said it was not rape because the unconscious victim 'wanted it.' :no:

It is not possible for anyone to argue against apparent inconsistencies with things that they've actually said and things that they might possibly be assumed to have said for sure in some hypothetical situations but didn't actually say.

Anyway it seems clear to me that both Earl and your unconscious woman on the street were unable to give consent after the point they passed out, and possibly for some time before that. I don't see anyone arguing against that. I don't see anyone arguing that females should have the right to have sex with unconscious males on the street whenever they feel like it. Most jurisdictions say it's legally a rape to have sexual encounters with an incapacitated person regardless of the gender of the participants.

But I think if the person wakes up saying they don't want it treated as rape and he/she is not a victim and it was all consensual - maybe their opinion should count for something. More than mine, anyway, since I wasn't there.

It is, or isn't, a rape on several different levels:
1. the absolute truth - possibly only God knows but it seems like she was indeed doing it to an unconscious person -
2. the opinion of the alleged victim -says it wasn't rape
3. the opinion of the alleged perp -says it wasn't rape but her ability to appraise the situation seems to have been questionable - were either of them able to consent?
4. the opinion of the police - they don't seem to be treating it as rape but it might change
5. the opinion of the court of law -not yet known and possibly will never be if 2. and 4. don't change

If the victim is saying that it wasn't a rape it's very hard for the police or the courts to do anything about it.

If random outsiders treat Kim as a rapist although the police and her boyfriend aren't seeing it like that it could be problematic. Not sure we are allowed to call Kim a rapist, as per WS TOS, if she has never been charged for rape.

 

[Donjeta]

[ I listed the previous comments that have been posted here about males having sex with 'sleeping' females. It was nearly unanimous that anyone having sex with an unconscious, drunk female is committing rape. Why would this case be any different? If she was unconscious and laying in the street in broad daylight while her boyfriend had sex with her, are you saying that is NOT rape?]

SHE CANNOT GIVE CONSENT IF SHE IS UNCONSCIOUS. It is not possible to give consent while fully impaired/unconscious.

We are agreed, no reason to shout. It is not possible to (continue to) consent while unconscious. If you find an unconscious person in the street and take their pants off in the street, it's rape. If you're just two extremely drunk people who think that you're both consenting it may be more of a moral grey area but still, don't do it.

However I in practice sometimes it might not be worthwhile to prosecute people for everything.

If the victim doesn't feel like a victim and doesn't want to cooperate with the investigation and an eventual trial it might not be possible to secure a conviction.

If the unconscious person considers what happened as a consensual encounter that was all right within the confines of their relationship, he or she would not feel like they were getting justice if the police steps in and arrests their lover. They'd just be traumatized by the process and possibly suffer further from the consequences of their lover's incarceration. Not only would you be told by the courts, against your will, that you were a victim of a horrible crime that you don't believe happened, there might be unpleasant speculation about your private life in the court, the spouse in jail might mean less money to feed your kids... and so on.

JMO it is probably practical and humane for the alleged victim to have some say over whether they think it's a crime and want it prosecuted or not.

Anyhow, people who are laying on the street in broad daylight having any kind of sexual encounters probably need to get charged for public indecency or sent to court mandated rehab or something even if it wasn't rape. It seems like they must be quite out of control and need some sort of intervention to get their lives back on the track.

 

[Donjeta]

I agree with you.
A male friend of mine was passed out drunk a few years ago. A girl had sex with him. She got pregnant from it. They now have a son. If it were reversed, my friend would be in jail right now.

Did he report it as a crime?

 

[flourish]

It is not possible for anyone to argue against apparent inconsistencies with things that they've actually said and things that they might possibly be assumed to have said for sure in some hypothetical situations but didn't actually say.

.

That whole post was awesome. I snipped this part because it in particular really solidified my love of your posts. :blowkiss:

 

[flourish]

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.

I think it was rape. Although, you know, he got her worked up and consented then left her with blue...ovaries....my word.

Don't quote me as though I've said anything to the contrary.

 

[BritsKate]

But THEY weren't 'having sex.' He was unconscious. So she was raping him. I still do not understand why everyone is so hesitant to call it that.

You and I both know that if I came and told you that an unconscious woman was lying in the street and her boyfriend was on top of her, broad daylight, publicly having sex with her---You have to admit that you would call that RAPE---cut and dry, no doubt about it. Public sex with an unconscious woman====RAPE. No one would question if it was consensual. In fact, anyone who dared call it consensual would be called insulting and called out for even questioning it. OBVIOUSLY an unconscious woman cannot give her consent.

So it boggles my mind that everyone said the opposite about this case. They gave the rapist a pass and said it was not rape because the unconscious victim 'wanted it.' :no:

No, no they didn't. What many, including myself stated, was that if a rape victim (we're talking legal rape) didn't feel they were raped and didn't wish to pursue charges, that changes the situation. No one is proposing one rule for girls and another for boys - you're using a hypothetical in which a woman, drunk and flirty, claims she was raped with no photographic evidence against a man who claims he wasn't raped though there's obvious evidence to the contrary. Two people making totally different claims, regardless of gender, and that is what makes the difference.

Everyone whom I've read here has stated if this guy was claiming victimization, we'd be fighting in his corner. He is indeed a victim, legally, and if he chose to pursue charges against his rapist, I'd do everything in my power to support his cause. As I would, and have, for many rape victims.

 

[RANCH]

.

Even if a person couldn't give legal consent because they were unconscious and another person has sexual relations with them, it's not rape if the unconscious person later say's it's all okay. That's what I'm getting from some of these posts.

That means a person doesn't always need consent to have sex with a person. As long as afterwards the two individuals are on the same page everything is fine.

It kind of blurs what legal consent really is if you ask me. I was thinking that anyone who has sexual contact with an unconscious person is clearly guilty of a crime. It made sense.

Now, I'm not so sure. You would have to look at why the unconscious person said it was all okay. Are they afraid of what would happen if they say they were raped? Does the person who did the act on the unconscious person have power over the other person financially? Are they afraid the accused would leave them? Things like that could make a person deny that they where a victim when they really are one.

Or, perhaps they really don't care about someone have sexual contact with them while they are unconscious.

JMO

 

[RANCH]

Possibly but it's also quite likely that the charges got dropped or negotiated down to public indecency or some such thing, if it became clear that the girlfriend was going to testify that it was consensual and she didn't mind. It's pretty difficult to find a jury that will unanimously convict a person for rape if the victim is saying he or she wasn't raped.

It may be true that a DA would not pursue a case or a jury would not convict without a victim's support.

But that doesn't mean a crime wasn't committed or that a person wasn't harmed. Our justice system doesn't always work for victims. It's set up to give the accused more rights than their alleged victims.

We have Blackstone's formulation.

"It is better that ten guilty persons escape than that one innocent suffer"


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blackstone's_formulation

 

[BeginnersLuck]

Rape is a crime in the West. In certain countries in the Middle East, women can be stoned to death for being raped. Now that's rape culture.

I am just starting to read this thread, but there is no way I can not reply to your comment no matter how old it may be. You sir or madam are not acknowledging the fact that rape is a violent crime. If someone violently forces themself on another human being without their consent then you want to minimize that crime? If you fell asleep and woke up to someone sexually assaulting you or beating you would it be ok in you world? If it was your daughter, son, sister, mother..? Come on! I wouldn't want some dirty pervert messing with my child or loved one, would you be ok with that?

 

[RANCH]

Rape is a crime in the West. In certain countries in the Middle East, women can be stoned to death for being raped. Now that's rape culture.

I am just starting to read this thread, but there is no way I can not reply to your comment no matter how old it may be. You sir or madam are not acknowledging the fact that rape is a violent crime. If someone violently forces themself on another human being without their consent then you want to minimize that crime? If you fell asleep and woke up to someone sexually assaulting you or beating you would it be ok in you world? If it was your daughter, son, sister, mother..? Come on! I wouldn't want some dirty pervert messing with my child or loved one, would you be ok with that?

According to Michael Parenti, rape culture manifests through the acceptance of rapes as an everyday occurrence, and even a male prerogative. It can be exacerbated by police apathy in handling rape cases, as well as victim blaming, reluctance by the authorities to go against patriarchial cultural norms, as well as fears of stigmatization from rape victims and their families.[SUP][23][/SUP] Other sociologists posit that rape culture links nonconsensual sex to the cultural fabric of a society, where patriarchial world views, laced with misogyny and gender inequality, are passed from generation to generation, leading to widespread social and institutional acceptance of rape

Sounds like ebonydarkness acknowledges that rape is a violent crime in the western world and in the middle east the victim is to be punished.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_culture

 

[Montjoy]

Sounds like ebonydarkness acknowledges that rape is a violent crime in the western world and in the middle east the victim is to be punished.

Sounds more to me that ebonydarkness is (politically and misguidedly, IMO) attempting to dispute the suggestion that there is a 'rape culture' in the western world.

 

[Montjoy]

I don't believe in rape culture at all. The definition of rape in the west has expanded so much through radical third wave feminism and affirmative consent laws that it barely means anything anymore. Some college women think consent can be withdrawn retroactively and that regretful sex means rape, and innocent men are being punished without due process. Young people should learn to avoid alcohol or drink responsibly to avoid situations where they can be taken advantage of by other students, and that saying no is perfectly fine. Spreading debunked statistics like "1 in 5 women are raped" to induce misplaced panic will not help. There have been pro-rape freshman chants at universities like UBC and Saint Mary's in Canada that are truly disgusting compared to these banners.

...and this post substantiates the point I'm making in the post above.

 

[RANCH]

...and I this post substantiates the point I'm making in the post above.

That post explains it all. Thanks.