Is this rape?

the state criminalizing not being a state informant goes very bad very fast,

WHO ?

I think yes it is rape. But why you decided to stay for a night with him?

She has to do WHAT ??

What do u mean "has to"??? By what authority is she compelled??

Is this rape?

The answer depends somewhat on your age and the age of the male involved.

Since you say you are a runaway, I assume you may be a minor, and, depending on your age, the male's age, and the state in which this took place, this sexual contact might be considered statutory rape.

If you are an adult female, I would not consider what occurred to be rape. You in no way clearly indicated a lack of consent, either verbally or behaviorally, to the male. While, "No means no," in terms of date rape, your somewhat ambiguous response of, "I guess," indicates some consent, albeit a less than enthusiastic affirmation on your part. This does not translate into rape--an act performed despite your objections, or when you are unable to give legal consent. You were not unconscious, you heard him ask, "Are you okay with this?" and you were not, apparently, physically incapacitated from giving an honest response. That you have, "a hard time saying, 'No'" does not turn the act into a criminal offense on the part of the male, unless you suffer from such severe emotional and intellectual problems, that would have been apparent to him, and which might preclude you from the ability to give legal consent. That does not appear to be the case in the situation you describe.

You simply weren't in the mood for what he wanted to do, you didn't clearly let him know that, you instead gave him an ambiguous response that could easily be interpreted as consent, and you just hoped he'd somehow guess your real feelings and leave you alone. That's not rape. It's a failure on your part to let him know what you really wanted him to do.

Should you report it?

Do you want this male criminally charged and prosecuted? Do you feel he committed a criminal act? Whether you felt "violated" is not the determining factor in this scenario, because you rather passively, but consciously and willingly, allowed yourself to be used. The only issue is whether the male violated the laws of the state by his behavior, and, as far as I can tell, the only laws which might have been violated are those pertaining to statutory rape. I suggest you check the laws of your state and then decide whether you want this male criminally charged and prosecuted if those statutory rape laws apply and have been violated.

If you are clearly concerned for your welfare and well being, you cannot continue to live as a runaway, spending your nights with men who offer you a bed for the night. You are making yourself vulnerable to all sorts of things with your own high risk behaviors. Please, seek some social service assistance to help you find a safer and more appropriate way of dealing with your entire situation.

So it rotates all around your take on it. I'll be sure to check in with you before posting. My commenting on someone bringing a very serious situation to a very shallow pool of experts is bad. Someone goofing on a serious problem in societies the world over is OK so long as you "feel it". I find a lighthearted attitude about rape offensive. And I think I will maintain my prerogative to comment on it.

Apart from the possibility of a statutory rape, or other factor that precludes the ability to give legal consent, the situation the OP describes is what might be considered "acquaintance rape" or "date rape"--and it should be evaluated by the laws pertaining to that type of sexual assault, and by the legal definitions pertaining to consent for such activity.

At the very least, in the absence of force or threat, the victim must give some evidence of her lack of consent, either verbally or behaviorally. In New York state, for instance, this is what would be required to establish that such an act would be considered rape:

Did Kayla Marie clearly express such lack of consent? Did she say, "No" or "Stop" or "Don't do that"? Did she try to push the male away from her, or did she try to get up from the bed, or indicate, in any way, that she wanted to leave? A few hours later, when he indicated his desire to again have sex, did she protest at all? Did she offer any indication of non-consent? Apparently not.

Did the male ask her if she was consenting to his actions? Yes, he did.

Did she give him an affirmation response regarding consent? Yes, I believe she did by saying, "I guess". Particularly in the absence of any verbal or behavioral indications of non-consent, that "I guess" can reasonably be construed to indicate acquiescence. She willingly and consciously, even if grudgingly, participated in the sexual act by her own volition.

Did the male have any rational reason to believe he was committing a sexual assault against Kayla Marie's will? Did he act as though his intention was to commit a criminal act? No, not at all, judging by Kayla Marie's report of his behavior. There is no indication that he wouldn't have stopped had she simply told him to do that, or had she clearly indicated his actions were unwanted and against her will.

Where is the evidence that any crime occurred? How did this man's behavior violate sexual assault laws?

Why would you tell Kayla Marie, "Why not?" with regard to whether this incident should be reported as a criminal act, when there is no apparent legal basis to consider it a criminal act? Do you regard accusations of rape that lightly?

What exactly did this man do that significantly deviated from normally acceptable behavior? Make moves on a woman he was spending the night with? Have sex with an acquaintance who gave no clear indication of unwillingness to participate in the act? Is there anything so unusual/abnormal/deviant, let alone criminal and heinous, about those sort of actions that he should be prevented from repeating them with other women in the future? Do you want to see all men similarly constrained from such activity?

If Kayla Marie had awakened to find this man looking through her purse for her wallet, and he asked her if it was all right with her if he took her credit cards and cash, and she answered, "I guess," would you also tell her, "Why not?" if she asked you whether she should report this as a theft?

Accusing someone of a crime is a serious business that should not be taken lightly or frivolously. At the very least, the person making such a report should feel sure that a law has actually been violated--whether prosecutors or juries agree is a different matter--but the person who makes the report should do so because they genuinely believe they have been the victim of a crime, and that the accused should be held legally accountable for that criminal action.

Kayla Marie engaged in consensual sexual activity, no matter how half-hearted, or unenthusiastic, or grudging, her participation was. The fact that she has "a hard time saying, 'No'", does not absolve her of responsibility for her own actions, and it does not transform the male into a criminal--or even "a creep and an arsehole". She was not raped, because no clear violations of rape law took place in the account she has given us.

Apart from the possibility of a statutory rape, or other factor that precludes the ability to give legal consent, there is no rational legal reason this incident should be reported to authorities as a sexual assault. To do so would be needlessly damaging and stressful to the male involved, without legitimate reason for the suffering thereby inflicted on him. And that's the real answer to your, "Why not?" report it.

who are you, and what did you do with Firefly? She was never this reasonable.

You are usually so caught up in creating a mythical firefly, one that you can use as a strawman to promote your own agenda, that you generally distort what I say, or fail to comprehend it, or just don't let it register. When you take your blinders off, apparently you can see I am quite reasonable, particularly on the issue of how the rape laws should be applied.

I'm also not entirely without sympathy for the OP, particularly if she is an underage runaway who may place herself in all sorts of compromising situations in order to have a place to sleep for the night, and who may see her own options and entitlements as limited once she does that. But, putting aside possible issues of statutory rape, I think it's important for her to understand that, although she felt "violated", she, in fact, set no boundaries which this man violated. She protested nothing he did, and, both verbally and behaviorally, she indicated acquiescence. She gave him no reason to believe he did not have her consent for what he was doing, no matter how tepid that consent might have been.

More accurately, rather than being "violated", she simply allowed herself to be used by him, for whatever her reasons might have been, but she did so volitionally, and without any apparent coercion on his part. He didn't violate the law because he didn't violate her expressed wishes, and that's what's important for her to understand. If she wants her feelings to be respected, at the very least she's got to express them.

All things considered, the whole issue of whether this is rape, or whether it should be "reported", seems to be the least of the OP's problems, particularly if she is a homeless runaway. She needs to direct her attention to resolving her life situation problems, and to finding the assistance to help her do that.

Might be, but probably won't, because a court would interpret two utterances of "I guess", combined with the absence of any acts to indicate dissent, as consent. As David pointed out, the guy is not legally required to telepathically detect what she was thinking or feeling about having sexual intercourse with him.

Anyway, it's a mute issue: If the original poster reported the incident, she doesn't need our advice. If she hasn't, she's not going to have any evidence of the incident left on her body.

The OP has not posted again so I assume that she is gone, but I generally agree with you on the subject of her. However this is the first time that I have heard you talk about the responsibility that we all have for our own care, our duty to know what we want and communicate this to those around us. All too often now the first instinct, supported by many, is to cry victim when we decide that things did not go as we want them to go do matter how lazy we were about getting what we want.

I am all for helping victims to heal, I have in fact devoted a lot of my life to that cause as well as in encouraging people to not be victims in the first place, but this modern cultural trend of encouraging people to rationalize abdicating responsibility for their well being by playing the victim for the do-gooders who get off on that bullshit drives me nuts.

I am happy to see that we may have broad areas of agreement.

I wasn't implying that "date rape" or "acquaintance rape" had occurred in this situation, I was merely stating that those "No means no" laws would be the applicable sexual assault laws by which this situation should be evaluated. Apart from the possibility of statutory rape, I do not think this situation meets the legal standard for any sort of rape. I don't think there is any violation of law to report.

A rape complaint could be made in the absence of physical evidence, but I think the issue is a moot point because the OP doesn't seem to be showing any interest in the responses she's receiving, or in supplying any more information. She hasn't posted since the OP. I suspect we might be considering a situation which is more hypothetical than actual.

doubtful, this is probably the sex that is regretted by the woman in the morning situation that Bill goes on and on about. He is right that this happens often, as well as in his opinion that men should not be hung out to dry by the "justice" system when women cant decide what it is they want at the time but later decide that they do no like what happened. I dont go with the opinion that men are bigger than women thus we have an obligation to protect women from themselves ( act as their chaperons) , as in "only and enthusiastic yes will do, and only when it is good for her". Men are not gods, this is asking too much of us.

Good grief. That poor boy isn't guilty of rape. He has no idea what is going on in your head. He ASKED you. "I guess" is a positive affirmation. Even though a more thoughtful guy may have paused to clarify, you were in his bed. This gives him a pretty good assumption that you are open to sex. He asked. You give a reasonably understood positive affirmation.

Rape is forced sex without asking. Rape is continued sex after you say NO STOP. Rape is seducing someone who is either too young or too mentally disabled to make a decision. Rape is not having consensual sex, which is a fair description of what he did.

Please avoid getting into bed with people you don't want to have sex with - and in the least, say "no" if a guy asks.

You basically wanted a place to stay for the night and you were worried that if you said no to sex - he'd make you leave. I do have sympathy for that - but to charge him with rape because of your conflicted feelings and misrepresentation of them is inexcusable.

Just please learn from your mistake.

Jeez.

I'm happy to see that too.

No, I don't think that's the case in this situation. And what BillRM generally goes on and on about is drunken sex--where there may be real legal issues regarding consent--and where a woman may have more legitimate legal reason to assert she was assaulted or raped--and those are issues that BillRM tends to ignore. It's less that men have to be "guardians" of women, and more that they have to be self-protective when making sure their partner is aware of what she's doing, and is cognitively competent to give consent, particularly if she's been drinking.

I do believe most decent men don't want a woman to have a sexual experience with them that they'll later regret, or one that they'll feel harmed or degraded them in some way, and I also believe that most men are decent in that regard, and they do take their partner's wishes into account, even a partner they might not know well at all.

In the situation the OP described, this isn't simply regret after the fact--according to her, she had no interest or desire for any sort of sexual interaction with this man, but she acquiesced anyway. Maybe she felt this was the price she had to pay for having a place to sleep that night. Maybe she is such a passive and submissive person that she really does have a "hard time saying, 'No'". But, for whatever reason, she allowed herself to do something she didn't feel like doing--she allowed herself to be used by this male, solely for his own sexual satisfaction. And then she felt badly about having been used. But she then allowed him to use her for a second time a few hours later. And that left her feeling so "violated" she wondered whether this was rape.

Maybe for her it was like being raped because she may have felt she was little more than a piece of meat used by this man, and he really didn't care about what she wanted--she was simply available to him. And maybe that was true, But, did he legally rape her? No--she gave him indications of consent, and no protestations to suggest non-consent. Does she have a right to feel rotten for having been put in that situation, for being so vulnerable, and for having to put up with unwanted sex? Yes, I think she does, but I just don't think she has the right to cry, "Rape!" about it--she wasn't legally raped, unless, of course, statutory rape laws would apply in her case.

Obviously, there is a whole backstory here if this female is a runaway. She needs to find herself some help, not a scapegoat.

.

regret that she let a man do his thing on her is regret after the fact in my books. I see no reason to demand that regretted sex was wanted in the first place.

You're overlooking the fact that the OP isn't expressing "regret". What she said is that she felt "violated".

When the sexual contact is clearly unwanted, as it apparently was for the OP, the emotional experience for the female may be one of being raped. That seems closer to what the OP is expressing. Emotionally, this may have been a rape for her. But, because she failed to communicate non-consent to the male, and she overtly indicated acquiescence with what he was doing, it would be inappropriate, in this situation, to accuse him of intentionally violating her wishes, or to legally charge him with rape.

I wouldn't question the validity of her feelings about being "violated" or her wondering whether this was "rape"--but I'd try to help her understand the difference between her emotional experience of the sexual encounter, and her reaction to it, and "rape" as a specifically defined crime that must contain certain elements. I'd also try to help her to be more assertive in expressing her true feelings in any future sexual interactions.

so what? nobody is responsible for your emotional state but you, and crime is not decided by emotion but rather by acts.

But if the situation was as you suspect, she was homeless and in a guys bed not wanting sex, the feminists will tell you that this was rape because there is an assumption that he would have kicked her out if she said know. The MAN had the power, he had the warm bed, and while nothing was said the power imbalance was self evident and lead to coercion at least in her mind, so this was rape.

Me I have this as regretted sex, she regretting not saying no.

That's because you're more interested in promoting your usual agenda--"men should not be hung out to dry by the "justice" system when women cant decide what it is they want at the time but later decide that they do no like what happened..."--rather than trying to understand what the OP has actually expressed. She's not expressing "regret" in any way, she knew at the time she did not want sexual contact, and her emotional experience of the contact was of being "violated".

You might understand women better if you actually listened to them rather than try to put words in their mouths, as you are trying to do with the OP.

So, if I jab you with a large pin, you are solely responsible for the pain you feel on an emotional level--I would have no responsibility for that pain?

I really have no interest in what alleged "feminists"--your usual shadowy bogeymen--might have to say about this situation. Again, I suggest you listen to what the actual female in this situation had to say. She reports that she was "vulnerable", because of her situation, but she does not report feeling coerced, or intimidated, by him. We have no clear idea whether she acquiesced because of her particular psychological makeup ("I have a hard time saying, 'No'"), some possible past history of abuse which might have contributed to her submissiveness, or because of the situation she found herself in that night.

We are in complete agreement on that score.

But that doesn't mean we should completely ignore the fact that people can feel they are being "raped" or "violated", when they are subjected to unwanted sex, even though the sexual contact might not fully meet the legal standard for a crime of rape. While I might not feel a crime of rape occurred in the OP's case, I wouldn't callously disregard her feelings of violation either. Rape is both an emotional experience and a crime--the unwanted sex is experienced on an emotional level as a violation, it's not just a criminal act spelled out in the penal code.

Whether or not her experience would be considered a legal rape would likely make little difference to the OP in terms of how she felt about it. If she felt "violated" it was because she experienced unwanted sexual contact, which is the emotional essence of rape, and I wouldn't dismiss or trivialize her feelings on that score. I just wouldn't regard this particular situation as a legal rape, which should be reported or prosecuted, because the acts of the male did not conform to the legal standard--he did not act with disregard for her expressed wishes.