Apparently, Rape is not Rape

[No Names Left Damn It]

I've never understood why people think I'm not calm just because I'm insulting them.

Oh, in that case perhaps my above post should read: please refrain from your wild accusations, kind woman, for I was merely jesting.

[Greed and Death]

Well i am going to be judge in this case.
My ruling not rape, guilty plea tossed out.
and on a side ruling the women is sent to jail for 30 days for filing a false report.
Next case.

[Saint Jade IV]

I'm a bit perplexed at how most people see this as either black or white. Rape or consensual sex. No room for the shades of grey that colour such activities in the real world.

And then you go on and on for a page, trying to figure out ways for it to be okay when men have sex with women who may or may not be consenting.

How about...no? It's really easy to solve this problem. Teach guys that if you aren't sure whether a girl actually wants to do something, then YOU SHOULDN'T DO IT.

If a girl is passed out, don't rape her.

If a girl is asleep, don't rape her.

If a girl is frozen and silent and doesn't really seem to want to do something, but she's not responding when you ask her about it, don't rape her.

If a girl is drunk or drugged, don't rape her.

If a girl says yes but then says no, don't rape her.

If a girl says yes but then passes the hell out, don't rape her.

If a girl said yes to one thing but not to another, don't rape her.



I think what the douchebags of this world are missing is that this issue IS black and white. It's really, really simple. Stop fucking people who aren't consenting. If you spent half as much energy PAYING ATTENTION to what your partner is or isn't saying as you do into trying to figure out ways to justify the raping of unconscious people, then you'd never have to worry about "false" accusations of rape. If you spent half this much energy teaching boys to not view women as human toilets to be used at will, then maybe there wouldn't be so many situations in which a poor innocent boy totally didn't realize he was raping a girl when he fucked her unconscious body.

It seems simple don't it? But it is a long list, perhaps too many rules for the average male to follow?

[No Names Left Damn It]

It seems simple don't it? But it is a long list, perhaps too many rules for the average male to follow?

If you consent to sex, and don't tell someone not to continue, don't be surprised if someone continues after you pass out. Perhaps that's too complicated for the average woman to understand?

[Tahar Joblis]

Is it possible to give future consent?

Definitely. Consent, in fact, is generally in advance of an act by at least a moment (hard to get permission for what you've already started to do, isn't it?), and can precede it by any length of time.

You can put consent in writing if you like, e.g., something like: "I, (INSERT YOUR NAME HERE), do consent to being done up the (SELECT ORIFICE HERE) on the date of January 19th. 2012 by Jello Biafra."

And not just regarding sex:

"I, (INSERT YOUR NAME HERE), do consent to being liberally attacked with pies by Lunatic Goofballs on the third Tuesday of next September at 4 am in the morning, when I shall probably be sound asleep."

Once given, of course, it can be in the future revoked actively.

And therein lies the complexity. It is not simple, and when miscommunication happens, or someone makes a bad judgment call, people wind up hurt and unhappy. Never will everything be explicit, and the worst wrongs will be committed by those with no doubts in their mind that whatever they're doing is what the other person really wants.

Nor, as Bottle keep seeming to imply through choice of example and rhetoric, is rape strictly an issue of men doing bad things to women, though this is a very real social trend; nor are all acts that would be defined as rape equal in guilt and harm. The same is true of any type of transgression against a person, whether the violent causing of injury, the restriction of movement, or subjection to that which is toxic, and no matter how specific the definition is, there will always be cases which test both culpability and criminality of an act.

I think what the douchebags of this world are missing is that this issue IS black and white. It's really, really simple.

If it were that simple, you wouldn't have to list that many separate cases in your description in order to adequately define it.

Rape itself is relatively simple (through the dividing line between it and sexual assault may not be, in all cases); consent, however, is not, as has been demonstrated quite well by the variance of opinion within this thread. It's not a question of douchebags just not getting it; these are a variety of intelligent and articulate persons who disagree on the scope of consent in the case, how to test the presence of consent, or even - in my case - whether we have enough information from the lousy articles to know for sure what the fuck happened.

Stop fucking people who aren't consenting.

Tell me how you can define the scope of consent without knowing what communication passed between two people. Tell me how you have divined what happened with two drunk idiots in a park, fumbling around in the darkness, from reading an article that doesn't quote any testimony, talking about how the judge wants more time to figure things out. Tea leaves? The writings of Nostradamus?

The legal standard of evidence is beyond a reasonable doubt. And I reasonably doubt your tea leaves.

If you spent half as much energy PAYING ATTENTION to what your partner is or isn't saying as you do into trying to figure out ways to justify the raping of unconscious people,

Full stop. Who is you? Men? Rapists? The people in this thread?

In any of those three cases, you're making an awful lot of unjustified assumptions.

then you'd never have to worry about "false" accusations of rape.

False. I can have cause to worry about a false accusation of rape any time I've been alone with another person. It may well be that few courts would convict me falsely of rape, but simply being accused and having to defend myself would put me through the cleaners.

Even a lesser charge - of sexual assault, say - could be devastating to me or you in a very real way.

If you spent half this much energy teaching boys to not view women as human toilets to be used at will,

Full stop. See what I wrote above.

[The_pantless_hero]

It seems simple don't it? But it is a long list, perhaps too many rules for the average male to follow?

If you consent to sex, and don't tell someone not to continue, don't be surprised if someone continues after you pass out. Perhaps that's too complicated for the average woman to understand?

I lol'd.

[Hydesland]

The judge ... is showing his contempt for women and his beliefs that they are little more than slavish, sexually available sluts, who have no right to complain about actions taken if they happen to be drunk and consent to one particular sex act.

Really? That's really what you read?

It's called severe drama-queenism mixed with paranoia, I swear half the people on this forum have it.

[Galloism]

The judge ... is showing his contempt for women and his beliefs that they are little more than slavish, sexually available sluts, who have no right to complain about actions taken if they happen to be drunk and consent to one particular sex act.

Really? That's really what you read?

It's called severe drama-queenism mixed with paranoia. I swear half 90% of the people on this forum have it.

Fixed.

[Dempublicents1]

http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,25823169-952,00.html

A judge refused to impose a jail sentence on a man who pled guilty to rape after continuing to perform a sex act AFTER the victim passed out. Apparently, it's unfair to mark him as a rapist.

I'm sorry, but if someone is PASSED OUT, how do you continue and not be a rapist?

While I am unsure of the appropriate sentence, I do think, if you KNOWINGLY continue to have sex with someone after they have passed out, then that makes you a rapist. Of course, she consented to an initial sex act before passing out, but we have no way of knowing what further sex acts were performed, or how far the victim was prepared to go. Because she didn't get the opportunity to consent to continuation or further sex acts.

I disagree.
If someone consents then doesn't say no, it ain't rape.

How exactly can someone say no when they are incapable of doing so?

[Bottle]

It seems simple don't it? But it is a long list, perhaps too many rules for the average male to follow?

If you consent to sex, and don't tell someone not to continue, don't be surprised if someone continues after you pass out. Perhaps that's too complicated for the average woman to understand?

No, it's not too complicated for most women to understand that there are rapists in the world. 1 in 3 of us have been raped, you see.

I think you're mistaking outrage for surprise. If you fuck the body of an unconscious woman, lots of people will be disgusted with you and consider your actions abhorrent...but I doubt anybody who knows you will be surprised.

[Phenia]

It seems simple don't it? But it is a long list, perhaps too many rules for the average male to follow?

If you consent to sex, and don't tell someone not to continue, don't be surprised if someone continues after you pass out. Perhaps that's too complicated for the average woman to understand?

Oh, I don't think being surprised is the issue. There's really nothing surprising about brainless little dipshits who rape women.

[Bottle]

If it were that simple, you wouldn't have to list that many separate cases in your description in order to adequately define it.

So like, if instead of saying "It is generally unwise to drink drain cleaner," I listed each brand of drain cleaner and specified that you shouldn't drink them, you'd conclude that "Don't drink drain cleaner" is an extremely complicated concept.

Rape itself is relatively simple (through the dividing line between it and sexual assault may not be, in all cases); consent, however, is not, as has been demonstrated quite well by the variance of opinion within this thread. It's not a question of douchebags just not getting it; these are a variety of intelligent and articulate persons who disagree on the scope of consent in the case, how to test the presence of consent, or even - in my case - whether we have enough information from the lousy articles to know for sure what the fuck happened.

There are a variety of intelligent and articulate people who are also douchebags.

And you don't need to know what exactly happened in this situation to have a conversation on the subject. Here's how it works:

You say, "IF this is what happened, THEN this is the appropriate response."

IF this girl consented and then passed out, THEN the guy who continued fucking her unconscious body is a rapist. See how that works?

Tell me how you can define the scope of consent without knowing what communication passed between two people.

Defining the scope of consent doesn't require knowing the specifics of a situation. Just like I posted above.

IF she consented but then passed out, THEN I consider her to have become non-consenting the moment she lost consciousness. But that's because I consider sexual consent to be ACTIVE, not passive. If somebody is not conscious then they are not capable of giving consent in my book, and since I don't believe that females exist in a state of default-consent it is very, very easy for me to define "fucking an unconscious woman's body" as "fucking her without her consent."

Full stop. Who is you? Men? Rapists? The people in this thread?

In that case, the post was addressed to the person I quoted. But, of course, it wouldn't hurt for everybody (male AND female) to apply that standard. If you aren't sure your partner is consenting, STOP FUCKING THEM.

False. I can have cause to worry about a false accusation of rape any time I've been alone with another person. It may well be that few courts would convict me falsely of rape, but simply being accused and having to defend myself would put me through the cleaners.

Actually, no, it won't. You're actually LESS likely to be falsely accuse of rape than, say, assault. And even if you're accused, you're less likely to see any charges brought against you if the accusation is rape. And even if charges are brought, you're even less likely of having it go to trial.

Meanwhile, every woman you meet has a 30% chance of being raped.

Frankly, if you really do feel that consent is a "complex" or "confusing" area of discussion, then you really should never fuck anybody under any circumstances, because it sounds like you probably WILL end up raping somebody and then claiming it was a false accusation because she consented to sex so how could she cry rape when you decided to go for anal?

[Dempublicents1]

I'm a bit perplexed at how most people see this as either black or white. Rape or consensual sex. No room for the shades of grey that colour such activities in the real world.

This is because it really is that black and white. Rape is non-consensual sex. So if it isn't consensual, it's rape.

At what point does it become rape? At the instant she loses consciousness, or at the time he realizes she lost consciousness? If he never realizes that shes unconscious is it still rape?

Rape requires intent. If her body was still responding and he didn't know she had passed out, it would be unfortunate, but not rape. My husband and I have actually started having sex in our sleep before. That's not rape, because neither of us was actually consciously doing it.

Is the consciousness relevant at all, was it rape simply because she was drunk? If her being drunk makes it rape, does him being drunk also give a 'diminished responsibility' excuse? At what point does one become too drunk to give consent? Over the legal driving limit or at some arbitrary point that will be decided by the most expensive lawyer?

This would really depend on how drunk both of them were. If she was drunk off her ass and he was relatively sober then yes, simply having sex could have been seen as rape. If they were both equally diminished, I would say no.

Are all those of us who have indulged in sex after a night of drinking really rapists, even though our partner was blissfully happy as we snuggled soberly the next morning.

No.

When my wife reaches across and caresses my genitals while I still sleep, is she really guilty of sexual assault, even though I find it a pleasant way to be awoken?

Depends. Does she know you enjoy it - that you consent to having that happen?

Is there no moral or legal difference between what happened in this case and a guy finding an unconscious female he doesn't know and forcing himself upon her?

Unless they discussed it ahead of time and she told him she was perfectly ok with him having sex with her while she was passed out, no, not really.

The struggle to establish a woman's rights over her own body has been long and difficult, and often made more difficult by reactionary judges who found 'implied consent' in everything from how a woman dressed to what area of town she chose to walk in. I would hope no-one wants to return to the days when a polite smile from the woman was seen in court as free license to any man who wished sexual intercourse.

Indeed.

But surely there is a difference between what happened here and a case where someone has been brutally forced by a stranger. Is it desirable to legally distinguish between those two acts? Should they really be tried under exactly the same statute? I simply don't know the answer, but my gut feeling is that the way we currently go about it doesn't really quite work for defendant or victim.

In truth, very few rapes involve being brutally forced by a stranger. Most rapes are performed by someone the victim knows, often quite well.

[Dempublicents1]

It seems simple don't it? But it is a long list, perhaps too many rules for the average male to follow?

If you consent to sex, and don't tell someone not to continue, don't be surprised if someone continues after you pass out. Perhaps that's too complicated for the average woman to understand?

If you keep going when someone is incapable of withdrawing consent, don't be surprised when it turns out that they want you prosecuted for rape. Is that too complicated for the average man to understand?

[Bottle]

It seems simple don't it? But it is a long list, perhaps too many rules for the average male to follow?

If you consent to sex, and don't tell someone not to continue, don't be surprised if someone continues after you pass out. Perhaps that's too complicated for the average woman to understand?

If you keep going when someone is incapable of withdrawing consent, don't be surprised when it turns out that they want you prosecuted for rape. Is that too complicated for the average man to understand?

Apparently the concept of "consent" itself is too complicated for some men to understand. A less charitable person than I might speculate that they are unfamiliar with consent because they've never received it.

[The_pantless_hero]

I'm a bit perplexed at how most people see this as either black or white. Rape or consensual sex. No room for the shades of grey that colour such activities in the real world.

This is because it really is that black and white. Rape is non-consensual sex. So if it isn't consensual, it's rape.

That's hardly the item we are checking the color spectrum of.

[Neo Art]

This is because it really is that black and white. Rape is non-consensual sex. So if it isn't consensual, it's rape.

No, actually, it's not. The fact that people seem to think it is, is probably what's causing a lot of contention here. "you had sex with someone who did not consent" is not the legal definition of rape.

[The_pantless_hero]

Apparently the concept of "consent" itself is too complicated for some men to understand. A less charitable person than I might speculate that they are unfamiliar with consent because they've never received it.

Because I'm sure overt flamebaiting is a much more serious board crime than implied flaming.

[The_pantless_hero]

If you keep going when someone is incapable of withdrawing consent, don't be surprised when it turns out that they want you prosecuted for rape. Is that too complicated for the average man to understand?

That depends on whether it is possible for all of you self-righteous hypocrites to get off your high horses.

[Dimoniquid]

First off - Wtfstftw? How can you continue to perform a sex act when someone's passed out? Second - rape is abusing someone to have sex, but considering he abused the victim first - I think - it would count as assult, not rape. Third - whether the victim has injuries would make it assult. Just so ya' know.

[Angleter]

If she was passed out...how did she know she was 'raped'?

And besides, I suppose that this is the best outcome for everybody- he is obviously not a threat to society, and he does not deserve to go to jail for five or so years before being put on the sex offender list and being blackballed from life.

I say that if a woman is incapacitated by somebody else (ie. drugged), then it is rape. If her incapacitation is her own fault (ie. drunk), then it is not.

What, so you favor frat boys taking turns with the passed out girl in the back room?

How about girls who sleep really heavily? Free rape passes there, too, right, as long as you don't wake them up?

Unconsciousness does not equal a warrant of consent for a very good reason. The girl who passed out at the party is definitely legally off-limits to the frat boys, though they may get away with their transgressions.

OK. Edited defintion of rape. If a woman denies consent to the sexual act, then it is rape. If she is incapacitated by somebody else, then it is rape. If she is unconscious throughout the sexual act, then it is rape.

What, so you favor frat boys having five or six years (by British standards) taken from their lives, and then for them to be placed on the Sex Offenders' List before being hounded wherever they go due to Megan's/Sarah's Law and not having a hope in hell's chance of ever getting a job. There was an episode of Criminal Intent where the Neighbourhood Watch started a vigilante campaign against this 'sex offender' (who had consensual sex with a 15-year-old), leading to some vigilantes killing him in a most graphic way.

[Neo Art]

OK. Edited defintion of rape. If a woman denies consent to the sexual act, then it is rape. If she is incapacitated by somebody else, then it is rape. If she is unconscious throughout the sexual act, then it is rape.

no, actually, not necessarily.

[Dempublicents1]

This is because it really is that black and white. Rape is non-consensual sex. So if it isn't consensual, it's rape.

No, actually, it's not. The fact that people seem to think it is, is probably what's causing a lot of contention here. "you had sex with someone who did not consent" is not the legal definition of rape.

Then it should be.

Note: I am aware that the law doesn't see some actions I would consider rape as rape.

[Gopferdammi]

OK. Edited defintion of rape. If a woman denies consent to the sexual act, then it is rape. If she is incapacitated by somebody else, then it is rape. If she is unconscious throughout the sexual act, then it is rape.

no, actually, not necessarily.

So what is the actual definition of rape in the legal system of the USA?

[The Cat-Tribe]

Not reading this entire thread. A couple of points:

1. This was a fucking plea bargain. Of course the "facts" agreed to by the two sides place the defendant in the most favorable light. Taking further liberties or spin upon those facts is completely unjustified.

2. All rape is REAL rape. Period. End of discussion. If you are having sex with someone that isn't consenting, you are committing rape. One stupid judge in Australia doesn't change that. To the contrary, his attitude reflects an unfortunate trend among prosecutors and judges to collaborate with rapists.