Did I get raped?

I know it is not always the man who pays for it.

I have argued many times that the collective often applies intense coercion upon the women to get them to participate in the lynching of the males involved to the point of being an other abuser, so in that sense I agree. The guilt trip " you have to do this for other women, he will do it again and it will be your fault if he is not stopped now" infuriates me to no end.

I don't quite know why you consider Dosed's straddling the guy on the stairs as an indication she wanted to have intercourse with him. Dosed's been rather clear about the fact that she never wanted to have intercourse with him. And she was never alone with him. She was making out with him in a public place. Then they wound up in the back seat of the car with Dosed's friend driving in the front seat. Those are fairly "safe" situations--Dosed had no reason to expect intercourse might occur. That's why it surprised and shocked her when she suddenly felt something inside of her. All she wanted to do was to make out with him. Why is that hard to believe? Every time you make out with someone you barely know, should you want to have intercourse with them, or feel obligated to have intercourse because you fooled around with them? People can just make out. Making out is fun. It does not indicate willingness, or consent, for intercourse. Dosed didn't want, or expect to have, intercourse with this man, and she's been very clear about that.

I'm not "advancing rape" I'm advancing the idea that people should be more considerate of feelings, and ask the other person what's wanted rather than just take something like intercourse for granted. These people really didn't know each other. The man should have asked her before penetrating her. That's the idea I'm advancing.

I also agree, "No means no". But, in this instance, I think Dosed was too drunk to say, or indicate, "No". She wasn't aware of much until she felt something inside of her. Saying "No" then is a little after the fact. She was also too drunk to legally consent to intercourse, and, in fact, she didn't want to have intercourse with him. And he never asked her. Those are the elements that make something like this a rape, but not the sort of rape that's ever going to get prosecuted, and Dosed wasn't, and isn't, thinking about the situation in those terms. But, yes, those are the basic elements of a rape, including the way Dosed felt about it afterward. There's a difference between bad sex and feeling violated. Dosed described feeling violated. I'm not willing to dismiss or disregard her feelings. She reacted to something unwanted being done to her. And one way for people to avoid hurting other people in situations like this, is to ask them if intercourse is wanted before just doing it. That also helps to avoid legal problems, but I see the real issue here as one of consideration and respect for the other person's feelings.

So, I'd blame the man for being somewhat inconsiderate and insensitive. Dosed was clearly consenting to fondling and kissing and just generally making out. But that doesn't translate into consent, or even desire, for intercourse. And, in the back seat of a car, with her friend driving in the front, there really wasn't much reason for the man to have expectation that intercourse was going to happen.

For all we know, intercourse might not have even occurred in this situation, since it's not clear what Dosed felt inside of her--it might just have been his fingers.

Look, if Dosed had loaned this man $5 in the bar that wouldn't mean she was giving him permission to later go to her handbag and help himself to more. That's sort of the way I see her making out behavior as distinct from an invitation to have intercourse.

what the ****? don't putter at me.

"I don't quite know why you consider Dosed's straddling the guy on the stairs as an indication she wanted to have intercourse with him."

You are kidding, aren't you?

I'm not kidding. She was drunk and coming onto to him in public, but she also knew she wasn't going to be alone with him. That fact, as well as all the alcohol, might have made her less inhibited, but, by no stretch, would I consider her straddling him in a public place as indicating consent for intercourse some time later.

osso, why are you just disregarding Dosed's repeated statements that she didn't want to have intercourse with him? Maybe she was just playing with him, acting seductively, simply enjoying making out? That doesn't mean she wanted it to go beyond that--she knew she wasn't going to be alone with him. In fact, she was never alone with him. I think you have to consider her behavior in the context in which it took place, along with the fact that she was quite drunk.

Well, eh, there is a long post back there that I have to deconstruct, but not at near 1 am.
Manana, I'll let this last one stand.

I think virginity was a concept to her and she was an avid female pulsing.. One of those won, or didn't as the case may be. Mounting him on the stairs is a wrong clue.
I don't remonstrate her except to pay more attention. I can hardly blame the guy.

"by no stretch, would I consider her straddling him in a public place as indicating consent for intercourse some time later."

Oh, well, we live in different worlds.

Where on earth do you get the idea that virginity "was a concept to her"?

I'm not under the impression that Dosed is a virgin, or that virginity is an issue here.

Read back at the beginning (I may be wrong, but I seem to remember that)

ok, nearly 1 a.m. here.
back to argue tomorrow.

You are right, osso. Dosed did mention she was a virgin. And that was the reason she did not want to have intercourse.

And her seductive behavior all took place in a situation where intercourse was not likely to occur (either in a public place, or in the car with her friend driving in the front seat). She really wasn't doing anything that was particularly risky or unsafe in terms of possibly getting raped because she was never alone with this man. She was just very drunk and making out with someone, with no intention of it going beyond that. And I believe Dosed that she never wanted it to go beyond just making out.

Also, this man was very drunk and may have assumed Dosed was consenting simply because she wasn't actively resisting in the back seat of the car.

I'm inclined to believe that sexual intercourse never took place in this situation and that what Dosed felt was penetration by the man's fingers. Given her intoxicated state, and lack of consent for any sort of penetration, that is a sexual assault, if not a rape. The important thing is how Dosed felt about it--she felt violated because it was penetration without her consent--and she has a perfect right to feel that way about it. He didn't ask her if he could do that, he might not have thought he needed to ask her if he could do that, but he should have asked her, because it is an invasive action and one which can be painful or unpleasant for the woman. Had he been sober, he might well have acted in a more considerate or aware manner.

Whether or not he intended it, that man's actions have caused Dosed emotional distress. I think it's important for men to understand that sort of thing. This isn't just about sexual assault/rape laws, or who is to blame, or someone getting into legal trouble. It's also about how people hurt each other emotionally and psychologically, even without meaning to do so. That's really what makes the issue of consent so important--it's an indication of respect for the other person, it indicates you consider their feelings important, that you don't want to hurt them, that you want to have their agreement for what is going on. That's why it's important to ask if something is alright before you do it--particularly with someone you really don't know--and I think penetrating someone's body certainly ranks high on the list of things you should ask about before doing it.

In slightly different circumstances, I think situations like this can easily turn into legal messes and real tragedies, particular if two very intoxicated relative strangers wind up in a room alone somewhere. Dosed and this man were both somewhat protected by the fact they were never alone.

Having sex with an extremely intoxicated women, particularly a woman you do not know, is very high risk behavior for a man because legal consent is absent simply by virtue of her very inebriated state. No matter how apparently receptive she might seem, a man can't just legally disregard the fact she's very drunk, any more than he could disregard her age if she were 15 and coming onto him in a sexually aggressive manner. And, when a man is so drunk that he's not even aware, or concerned with, the fact that the woman is barely conscious of what's going on, he might face a legal nightmare when they both sober up.

Was there really ever a time when rape was regarded as something other than non consensual intercourse? Is there anything new about the idea that you have to be conscious and aware to be able to give legal consent--that you have to know what you are agreeing to? Just as a man has to know whether he's sober before he gets behind the wheel of a car, he's got to know whether he's got his partner's legal consent before he penetrates her sexually, because those are his legal obligations to make sure he's not committing a criminal act. And, with someone like Dosed, the man was with a person who was extremely intoxicated and definitely did not want to have intercourse. That's like juggling with a live grenade in terms of the sexual assault/rape laws had this man been alone somewhere with Dosed. That's how some rapes happen that no one may have intended to happen. And the real culprit isn't the rape laws, it's irresponsible drinking, by both parties.

I think Dosed learned an important lesson from what happened to her. I hope she's able to control her drinking better from now on. She can't dull her brain to such an extent that she mindlessly exposes herself to the risk of something happening that she doesn't want to happen. Things can easily get out of control when you're very drunk. And, if intercourse isn't on her agenda, I think she should let the man know that, no matter how flirtatiously and seductively she might be acting. If she wants boundaries, she should make them known. And she's got to be sober enough to do that.

Great, so can we sign you up for supporting returning to laws where women have some responsibilities, for instance going back to rape being the action over indicated non-consent as apposed to the current law which is action without indicated affirmative consent ?

Stupid question I know....nice spiel about responsibility, only you will not let the law recognize it, so it amounts to hot air.

Your hot air also will not change that those who claim victim status will not be asked by anyone in the victim industry to take any responsibility for their behaviour

http://docs.google.com/viewer?a=v&q=cache:WCACR_2AUaMJ:www.wps.colostate.edu/Data/Sites/1/documents/Resource%2520Guides/OWPS%2520Guide%2520for%2520Parents%2520of%2520Survivors.pdf+pressure+on+sexual+assualt+victims+to+press+charges&hl=en&gl=us&pid=bl&srcid=ADGEESil3qszcNerLKaG4EkQrAp0TdWvQbrcvH7zP-M9hq_x6zYa2ANif3VPPpZxWihdgXsPG0psAJ0JNDhlrJhxp4dxPvB0LePiOIsgDW_eBKwc7TPVNRaOzv4FU8VFYdjJOXD8ufc5&sig=AHIEtbRxbzWgEOLLE86uWix2_3mRSDKtPg

Crime victims do not share responsibility with the perpetrators of the crimes. Only the one who commits a criminal act is responsible for the act.

If you leave a window to your home unlocked, and a burglar enters and steals your property, only the burglar is responsible for the theft. You just made it a little easier for him by leaving the window unlocked.

And a woman who becomes extremely drunk, and is barely aware of what is happening to her while she is being raped, is not responsible for her rape, she's just made it a little easier for the rapist because she can't offer much resistance.

People may act negligently, or foolishly, or carelessly, or stupidly, but that does not make them responsible for crimes committed against them. Other people chose to commit those crimes by disregarding the law. Under certain circumstances, sexual intercourse becomes the criminal act of rape. The person who chooses to have sexual intercourse under those circumstances is the only one responsible for the rape.

I think Dosed should be more self protective in the future, but that doesn't mean I hold her responsible for what someone else does to her.

Unfortunately, a women can take all the sensible precautions possible, be stone cold sober, and indicate non consent loud and clear, and she can still wind up getting raped.

BULLSHIT REPEAT BULLSHIT...Women are not adults with full adults rights and responsibility in Firefly universe.

She has far less respect for women then I or Hawkeye.

I

Punishing rapists is fine however punishing a young man for being stupid enough to date an emotional unstable woman who give him mixed and confusing signals and then afterward cry rape is not fine.

I am not for silly laws that state because one party is born with a penis it is his responsible no matter what the situation happen to be. Such laws seem on their face to be unconstitutional unless you view women as not being full citizens under the constitution.

One have to laugh as under the laws that Firefly love, that blamed the party with the penis it must get very confusing in a dating situation when neither parties happen to have a penis.

Guess Lesbians get a free pass on getting their partners under the influences.

In other word silly and irrational laws end up with silly and irrational results.

Most states have passed laws that a woman asking for a condom can not be used by a defense to indicate consent.

The laws are getting worst and worst.........

All this fear directed at someone you feel comfortable enough with to get drunk with, be alone with and have some sexual contact with?

He should be to blame then because for some reason you had develop an emotion fear of him to the point you could not tell him directly you did not wish to go beyond a given point?

You got to be kidding me.

In a way it is good that we have gate keepers in the justice system and of course juries to stop most of these bad sexual laws from having full force on innocent young men who only "crime" is getting involved with emotionally unstable young women such as the author of this thread.

Still because of this filtering such laws can remain on the books without the public as a whole even being aware of them.

Sadly the result then are a few random young men who cases are not stop by the gate keepers or jury nullification for one reason or another having their lives ruin for no good reason.

Without the commonsense filtering used on such laws it is my opinion that they would not remain on the books for many months.

As it stand now the state legislators can pass such silly laws to make the special interests happy without a backlash from the public at large who are still under the impression that our sexual assault laws are still sane.