Was I Raped?

Sorry Bill, but you're just plain stupid!
There is no way one can have a halfway reasonable exchange with you.
You don't even understand the basics and I haven't got the time to teach kindergarten. Your friend Frank resorted already to pictures only, you might try that too.

So long! My work is done here!

If this case were anywhere near as obviously an instance of rape as Jane seems to think it is...she should be obliged to suggest that the young woman go to the police and file charges.

But anyone actually thinking clearly (I am not accusing her of that) realizes that no prosecutor would touch this case with a ten foot pole.

It is not rape...it is stupidity on the part of two young people...and perhaps on the part of the people suggesting it is rape!

Good for you.

A cigar can be a pleasant experience.

Smoke it!

A lot of what gets called sexual assault is in fact youth screwing around trying to get a handle on sex and boundries. A lot of the alleged trangressions are not intentional violations, which is why the feminist/state cooperative charging ahead with draconian criminal sanctions is so wrong. I understand that the feminists want to beat on men and that they have a victim minding industry to fund, but come on!

Short note concerning the american justice system that CalamityJane stated have no problem with understanding rape it have ten times by percents of the the population behind bars then the UK does for example.

That less then ten percents of those charge with a crime get the protections of a jury trial due to the government overcharging to the point that reaching a deal whether you are guilty or innocent often made more sense then risking a jury trial.

That any of them can look at the initial posting and come to the conclusion that this was "rape"...is incredible, Hawk.

But, I guess if one wants to see evil...evil will be there.

I don't think it was rape, but I also think the guy was about as thick as a brick if he thought his girl was all there during the session.
She appears to me by her own words to be conscious, unconscious and semi-conscious at different times during the events. When she is conscious, she says, she was going to see just how far things would go. Not a good choice, IMO.
There's a scene in Rosemary's Baby where the female lead gets impregnated by Satan while she is in a drug induced stupor. She tries to wake up, at one point yelling "This is no dream!" then she conks out.
In the morning she questions her husband (who, you remember, was a willing dupe for the Satanic folks), he says "Yeah, I was kind of turned on and it was cool in a necrophilia kind of way. Sorry."

Both parties in a mutually agreed upon sexual relationship (he bought her a vibrator...that's fairly intimate. ) have to be responsible in their actions with one another. Have to say, he's a jerk,,,,and she's responsible for her own choices, the conscious ones, the only ones she can make.

I predict she'll make another conscious decision soon and try being single for awhile.

Joe(that will be better)Nation

And she is not a jerk? She was at least as bad as he was. Two kids fumbling around is what it was, but he is the one taking the risk of a sexual assault charge because if the anti male nature of our sexual assault laws.

Lord I just hope she get far better judgment as she get older and not keep playing such alcohol fuel games with her lovers..................Was I raped indeed

A man sees an attractive young woman sitting across the bar. He walks over and has a pleasant chat with her about her job and the local sports team.

He then says to her: "You're going to get laid tonight.", with a smile.

She says: "What are you? Psychic?"

He says: "No, I'm just stronger than you are."

No, this wasn't two kids fumbling around. It was one person making sexual contact with another person who was completely unresponsive, had her eyes closed, and seemed unaware of what was being done to her.

He might risk a sexual assault charge under such conditions, not because the laws are "anti-male", because they're not, but because he had no indication his contacts were wanted, or that she was in any condition to either consent or indicate non-consent because he knew she had been drinking.

In the state you live in, which has an affirmative consent standard--a "Yes" is required, or some indication that she is a freely willing participant--he would have crossed that line in terms of sexual assault. She was totally passive and unresponsive--she gave no indication she was fully conscious or awake, let alone "freely willing". How could you justify his behavior as not being a rape under the laws of your state?

In the state I live in, which has a "No means no" standard, the burden of responsibility for setting boundaries is on the person receiving the sexual contacts or attempts at genital penetration, who is most often the female. She must either say or indicate "No" or "Stop" to define those boundaries--the point at which the contact is unwanted, and the point at which consent is withdrawn. However, if she is mentally incapacitated or physically helpless--as she might be if severely intoxicated--she might not have the capacity to resist or to legally consent, and he is considered responsible for being aware of her condition, and not initiating sexual contact under those circumstances.

As I said in my previous post, I don't think this would be considered a rape in my state, because this particular woman was neither mentally incapacitated nor physically helpless--she tells us she was slightly tipsy, but mostly sleepy. She was aware of what he was doing, she wasn't unable to move or speak, she made a conscious decision to let him continue "to see how it played out" and when she finally said "stop", which was after the first vaginal penetration, he did stop. She could have said "No" earlier, but didn't, so, in terms of legality, she blurred the consent lines for him.

But, in this particular situation, we are discussing a boyfriend and girlfriend with an ongoing sexual relationship, and presumably, some positive feelings for each other, and the female wasn't incapacitated by alcohol, regardless of how she appeared, or tried to appear. If it had involved this male, or any male, acting this way toward another woman, who was genuinely incapacitated, there is no question it could be considered rape.

I fail to understand why cupcupcake is even wondering why she was raped, since she knows she had control in that situation. She wasn't being forced or threatened, or even really pressured, she was aware of the situation, and she knows she could have told him to stop earlier--when he first came into the room and got on her bed with her, and tried to talk with her and then began touching her, she could have told him she wanted him to leave because she wanted to sleep. Nor should she feel humiliated that she didn't do that, nor think about her boyfriend's behavior in terms of "rape", because, in this particular scenario, that legal label really doesn't fit, and I don't get the point of her even thinking in those terms. I think she's mainly pissed at her boyfriend for not being honest with her about what transpired when he thought she was knocked out.

I also fail to understand why anyone thinks this particular situation should be reported to the police as a rape--even if they think it meets the legal definition. The female involved is apparently not concerned about doing that. As much as I want to see more rapes reported, I wouldn't advise that in this particular situation, because it involved a degree of deception, by cupcupcake, about how "knocked out" she really was.

In ongoing sexual relationships, whether boyfriend/girlfriend or a marriage, one of the partners may try to initiate sexual contact or engage in sex, when the other isn't fully awake, or when they've had a little too much to drink, and they are passive and unresponsive, but unless the partner protests, they don't consider what they're doing a violation or an assault. And one instance of that might be reason to talk it about that the next day, to get future consent boundaries straight, but I think, if that's all that happened once, in a basically good, mutually respectful relationship, it's not sufficient reason to have a boyfriend or husband reported as a rapist and hauled off in handcuffs.

Situations, like the one in the OP, indicate why a "Yes means yes" standard of consent is preferable, particularly for younger adults. If a "Yes" is required before any and all sexual contacts, it would have been clear to the boyfriend that he didn't have it, because of her unresponsiveness and passivity, and he should have immediately left her alone. And she wouldn't be wondering whether she was raped, because the whole issue of what constitutes "consent' would be clearer.

I'm starting to see this is true.

My point in asking the people who are so sure this was a rape to advise the young woman to report it to the police...

...was to show that even they realize this WAS NOT a rape.

If you thought I was advocating for actually reporting the incident...you missed a great deal of what I had been saying.

Of course this shouldn't be reported to the police...and of course the young man should not be put in prison the way rapists should.

Both the young woman and the young man should do some growing up...and get their conduct under control.

That is the plan of the state, by way of beating on the male when they dont get it right. The female gets a free pass, every time.

Some much for any claim that our ideal is equality.

So we are going to keep increasing the level of permission needed before a man might not be charge with rape at the whim of his partner after the fact?

Sorry when it come to couples a woman should have an obligation to made her wishes known to her partner and in the context of how real humans make love.

Not play games such as "I guess I want to see how far it'd play out."

Stop with your usual pity party for men.

The state goes after the ones who have violated the sexual assault/rape laws--most often those people are men. People are expected to be familiar with those laws, and abide by them--including both men and women.

That's another reason why a "Yes means yes" standard of consent--which you oppose--is preferable, particularly for young adults. It makes both parties mutually responsible for gaining affirmative consent from the other person before initiating sexual contact with them.

So when the blacks, women, transgender and so on point out unjust laws and the sadistic tendencies of the societies elite that is your response......"stop with the pity party"?


Dont men deserve the same consideration that everyone else gets? Are you admitting that men are second class citizens because we dont deserve it?

Men aren't second class citizens, and you're just trying to drag another thread off topic. And I'm sure BillRM will be along shortly to help you do that. I'm not interested in feeding either your paranoia or obsessions.

Because talking about whether the state has the correct definition for sexual assault and the right policies to combat it would be "off topic" in a thread about the definition of rape........


The fact is that you cant put up an argument to support the feminist writen sex laws, because once you do you can no longer pretend to care about justice or equality, and you cant go there.

One thing Hawkeye with the Kangaroo hearing panels being set up to hear sexual misdeed complains that does not come near meeting the standards of the criminal legal system it is more and more important for the male students to know the names of the female students logging such complains.

As it seems it should be the right of male students to decide for themselves if they care to take the risk of having relationships with such complaining female students or even placing themselves alone with such female students.

In fact it sound like this would be a great opportunity for someone to set up a national colleges website clearance center that contain such information.

If the good names of male students can be put at risk it only seems fair to grant male students the names of complaining female students so they can decide for themselves if they wish to take the risk of associating with them.