Was I Raped?

You most assuredly are NOT a genius, Jane.

In any case, if you truly think this was RAPE...you should be advising this girl to go to the police and file charges. Rape is a very serious crime.

You are being a hypocrite if you do not...and so are the others who are claiming it was rape.

I do not think it was rape at all. I think it is a clear case of two young people being young, silly, unthinking, and precipitous. They ought both to be ashamed of themselves. But it was NOT rape.

And if you think I am all wet, as it appears you do...have the courage to tell the young girl to go to the police and file charges. I doubt she will do it in any case...so you really have nothing to lose...except some dignity, because this was not a case of rape.

Gheez, Hawkeye, BillRM and Frank Apisa - the right group to question what is rape and what is not.

Luckily we have laws that clearly define the outlines of rape.
You can talk and squirm all you want, fact is, according to the law it was rape. No matter what any of you three misogynists come up with.

Frank, I take you on any day pertaining your intelligence vs. mine - yet, there is no need to, everyone can read your posts - that is if they can decipher your nonsense.

Laws are only sometimes right or just, and I always reserve the right to not agree with the state.

Hahaha, that's funny!
You can reserve all you want - if the law is clearly defined and outlined you can agree or disagree personally, it doesn't make a dent though.

There is really no arguing either. Familiarize yourself with the laws of your own country how it defines rape and how it is outlined pertaining to rape.
Everything else is your own interpretation and frankly, no one cares!!

As for the OP, she asked if it was rape - according to the laws in this country,
the answer has to be YES!

End of discussion!

MLK did not agree, and neither do I. Unjust oppressive laws need to be challenged until they are overturned, laws which also violate the Constitution even more so.

An if the law was enforced as you claimed it clearly state it should be, then tens of millions of men would be rapists under your understanding of the law for the "crime" of having consensual if drunken sex with a partner.

Sorry but as far as I know you are not a lawyer nor do you have in my opinion the proper understanding of this law or the case law surrounding this law.

Our current sex laws are indeed crazy and getting more and more crazy but it have not reach the point you are claiming it have.

But do not worry as the way things are going we might soon need a second American Revolution to redress the matters.

Not just to address the crazy sex laws being put into place by special interests but a whole range of laws being put into place by special interests without any real regard to the welfare of the people as a whole.

Or to put it another way we have the very best congress and state legislatures that money and power can buy.

The state is going to run into the same problem that it had for decades with the sodomy laws, they made the claim of criminality but found it politically impossible to enforce the opinion.

If I remember correctly the SC found that people do indeed have a right to privacy in their homes and bedrooms that outweight the state interests in enforcing such laws as the sodomy laws.

I don't think this is rape, or would be regarded as rape in my state, assuming that what was described in the OP is even an actual incident.

This was some dumb set up by this woman to see if her boyfriend would have sexual contact with her if she seemed to be passed out from drinking, and whether he'd subsequently be honest with her about what had transpired.

That's not rape--no matter what the boyfriend believed her condition to be.

For one thing, the OP does not describe a truly unwanted sexual encounter. When the poster went to her bedroom, she knew her boyfriend would follow her, and likely initiate some kind of sexual contact. If that was truly not wanted by her, she could have told him that before she went into her bedroom. But she wanted to see what he would do, and how far he would go with it, that's why this was a set-up, a sort of experiment, to test the boyfriend.

And the poster does not actually describe anything the boyfriend did to her as genuinely unwanted--and that's a major component of what constitutes rape--it's unwanted sexual contact. She was fully aware of everything he was doing, and she really doesn't describe any of it as being physically or emotionally averse to her or being against her will in any way. She wasn't unconscious, or anywhere near it, she reports she was only light-headed, dizzy, and sleepy. She was capable of offering both verbal and physical resistance, if she genuinely didn't like what he was doing, she chose not to because she wanted to see how far it would play out.

She was capable of both giving, and withdrawing, consent, and her passive acquiescence to what her boyfriend was doing, without clear indication from her it was unwanted, by either a "NO" or pushing him away, would be regarded as consenting in the state I live in. By the time she finally said "stop" to him, before he did something, he did stop, and he left. But again, she's not describing the intercourse that took place as being genuinely unwanted--she's just telling us how far her boyfriend went, while she was pretending to be asleep or passed out with her eyes shut.

This wasn't a rape, it was all an experiment to see how far the boyfriend would go if she pretended to be semi-conscious or sleeping.

In actuality, she did not meet the criteria for being unable to consent due to intoxication in my state. She was neither "mentally incapacitated" nor "physically helpless".

"Mentally incapacitated" means that a person is rendered temporarily incapable of appraising or controlling his conduct owing to the influence of a narcotic or intoxicating substance administered to
him without his consent, or to any other act committed upon him without
his consent.
"Physically helpless" means that a person is unconscious or for any
other reason is physically unable to communicate unwillingness to an
act.

She wasn't mentally incapacitated, she was not only capable of appraising and controlling her conduct, through things like intentionally keeping her eyes shut to fool her boyfriend about her condition, she remembers everything that went on and how she acted (in more than one sense of that word), and tells us about it.

She definitely wasn't physically helpless, she wasn't unable to speak or move, and she could have opened her eyes and communicated lack of consent at any time. After her boyfriend left, she was able to get up and put on her pj's, and a short time later she was able to answer her phone and read and understand the text message he sent her.

She was not incapacitated by however much alcohol she had consumed. From her description she was slightly tipsy--that's not "incapacitation" or "helplessness"--which the law in my state would require, in order to judge her not capable of being able to legally consent.

This was not a rape--it is not what the law intends to be regarded as rape. At the very least, rape has to involve genuinely unwanted sexual contact, and I don't find that described in the OP. This was some bizarre experiment on this woman's part that involved deliberating faking or exaggeration of the condition she was in. Whether her boyfriend thought her condition was real, and had sex with her anyway, does not make him a rapist in this particular scenario because, in fact, she was not raped, she consented by consciously choosing to play passive to pretty much everything he did.

Not only would it be crazy to report this as a rape, it's crazy to even think about doing that. It would make more sense for this women to let the boyfriend know about her deception, if it's that important to her, and how she feels about the behavior he displayed when he thought she was in that semi-conscious/unconscious state, so that they can sort out any real or potential problems with consent that might exist in this relationship.

this kind of fumbling around without high level consent would get this guy kicked out of university and would make it almost impossible for him to get accepted into another one if the female started blabbing about it.

I doubt that. The same argument I just made, that she was a willing participant, would hold true at a university. There wouldn't be a "preponderance of evidence" to indicate this was a rape.

It's not that often that students actually get expelled, even when they have been found responsible for sexual misconduct.

And even those who are expelled for sexual misconduct are not hampered from transferring to another school because the college often chooses to conceal the disciplinary action taken against them, and the reason for it, on the expelled student's records.

according to Harvard


http://diversity.harvard.edu/files/diversity/files/harvard_sexual_harassment_policy.pdf

"I am just going to lay here and see if he decides to rape me" will work at harvard to nail a man. It is one of the best games of "gotcha" ever invented, and we have the feminists to thank for it.

NO.

Take me on in an intelligence test...and you would lose...big time. I am not a misogynist...nor do I countenance misogyny. I am commenting on a question in a forum...and I am commenting with a great deal more dignity and self-respect than are you.

If it is rape...why are you not advising this young woman to go to the police and to charge the young man with rape.

The reason is that you realize it was NOT rape. It was a stupid thing on both their parts...very stupid. But NOT rape.

And shrill people like you making outrageous charges of it being so...will not change that.

If rape can be indeed the minor game playing between a young woman and her boyfriend that CalamityJane stated then we can not therefore assume that when someone is charge with such a misdeed it is by it nature a serous offense.

Seems that she is failing to realize is that by supporting grouping such nonsense into the classification of rape she is helping to downgrade how serous the society as a whole is going to take such charges in the future.

I agree. I understand the loathing Jane has for rape...which is indeed a loathsome thing...but this particular scenario does not depict a rape.

Oh please, your English is suggesting otherwise and you're even a native speaker.

As I said yesterday: you can talk all you want, fact is: by law it was rape!

Now, I can see that you do not understand the laws of your own country, but that's your problem and yours alone.

Wow, let's have this stand alone for stupidity's sake!

There is nothing wrong with my English!



So advise the young woman to go to the police and file charges...so this young man will go to prison where he belongs...ACCORDING TO YOU.