No means no and yes may not mean yes.

no it doesn't.... it could also mean that what she defined as rape, didn't meat the legal definition of rape. Girls have been told "you will most be raped by a guy during college" it's easy to convince themselves that sleeping with that black boy "had to be rape because she wouldn't sleep with blacks"


it could also be, she's accusing the wrong guy of slipping her the mickey.....


if you and I go to a bar, and you roofie her drink in an attempt to rape her, unbeknownst to me, but I end up getting her to come home with me before you did.... doesn't mean I date-raped her.She could be fully functioning, but her brain (memory) has been turned off to what she was doing, so I may not know she's been drugged... Heck, I took an ambien one time, and my girlfriend had sex with me. I remember VERY LITTLE about it. just flashes about that night of sex. Apparently, I was pretty good and I was completely "awake" and functioning..... but my lights were out.


but back to the hypothetical.... I leave the girl you drugged at her apartment, and go home, she wakes up sore, her boyfriend finds our used condom, and she gets checked..... she has traces of date-rape drug, and my dna all over her face. Witnesses have her leaving with me from the bar, the roommates identify me, but noone is aware that you were the one that drugged her, until survelence footage from the bar is released showing what you did. Lucky for you, a postive identification of you is impossible, but it clears my name....

She false accused me of rape, but just because it wasn't true, does not mean it was a bona-fide rape....

 

Now first I will say this woman's use of the term 'rape' is not only hyperbolic, it is just plain destructive. Now please reread that statement as many times as it will take before moving forward.
Putting that aside, I am going to try to rephrase what I think she means, in a way that does justice to the point.

I think she I really talking about conditioning. Women and other minorities are conditioned to respond to the majority with compliance and its start very young as a girl. Girls are conditioned to accept a traditionally submissive role at ages 4, 6, 9, and 13 and that includes tolerating a pinch of the cheek, a kiss from a relative, and the grasp of a clammy hand in affection. That lifetime conditioning can lead to a perspective where one's wants and desires with respect to physically interaction are just not as crystal clear as those yes'es and no's we are all leaning on for guidance suggests. For yes to really mean yes, and no to really mean no, we are obliged to continue to fight against the conditioning process, and its base of operations, namely sexism, racism, homophobia etc. In a world full of paternalism and chauvinism, its going to be very hard to raise girls to throw away that conditioning, that desire to please, and sacrifice oneself to please in a thousand small ways so that we can all know that 'yes' is bankable.

I think that is what she is really talking about . The 'rape by culture' was a terribly inflamatory way to get there. Is it possible to discuss conditioning as a complicating factor in modern sexual dynamics, or are we determined to obsess with how 'wacko' the feminist movement is making our world?

 

`
a) Your quibbling, b) you have no proof, ergo, what you say is just your opinion, c) you are over analyzing by implying I said something I did not and d) child sexual abuse is a crime legally separate from the rape of an adult.

 

not sure, but as I understand it the person has to be "of sound mind" to consent, being drunk is not considered to be of sound mind and as such a drunk person cannot legally consent to sexual intercourse or pretty much anything else .. however being drunk is not a defence against rape or sexual assault accusations if the drunk person is the instigator.

So what it boils down to is if the man or woman is drunk, and even if they have said yes to sex .. don't do it .. as according to the law concerning consent a drunk person cannot give it.

 

Just read this article, and it speaks the truth. Why is it when a drunk man and woman engage in sex acts it is only the man who is accused of not obtaining proper consent?

Modern feminism is becoming less and less about equality.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/poste...ugly-sexual-encounters-as-rape-dont-let-them/

 

Actually that is not correct, men are as legally entitled to claim rape as a woman . .so in your example of a drunken sexual encounter the man could just as easily claim rape. The onus is then on their respective lawyers to prove the guilt of the other in a court of law.

As to your link, by legal definition the man who pursues a woman after she has said no to the point where she eventually concedes is guilty of rape .. it is known as Coercion.

Coercion - The intimidation of a victim to compel the individual to do some act against his or her will by the use of psychological pressure, physical force, or threats.

The reality is that if a man or woman says no then the asker should not pursue the other person in order to coerce them to change their minds, they should wait until that person offers without pressure involved. .. very difficult to prove BTW.

 

If a woman wants to say "no", why doesn't she just say "no"?

Are you suggesting sometimes a woman's choices are influenced by patriarchal social conditioning?

 

That the National Review is unloading on college sophmore's article in a college paper should embarrass the National Review's readers. That the National Review had to distort and dumb down what the sophmore said in order to execute their critique of it is just plain pathetic.

The girl's argument is actually significantly more sophisticated and thoughtful than the adult journalist's critique of it. She isn't arguing that people should go to jail for having consensual sex or anything idiotic like that, she is arguing that forces in society can coerce women into agreeing to do things they don't really want to do, and that we should try to minimize that problem.

Do any of you even actually disagree with that? For example, an unpopular 15 year old girl who feels like she can't say no to a popular guy even if he treats her poorly because she doesn't want to get ostracized. That's not a bad thing? Or a woman in poverty who is raising a kid that feels like she can't leave a guy who cheats on her because she doesn't know how she could support her kid without him. Isn't that a problem? Or what about a woman who begrudgingly says yes to sex with her boss because she doesn't want to get fired? Of course those things are problems and the sophomore did a nice job of laying it out in her article.

 

I agree with all of this if that's what she's saying, however it's not "rape" by any actual definition of the word, and there's no point at all in her calling it that other than for shock value. If her message was misinterpreted then she has part of the blame in that for tossing around a word like "rape" so lightly.

 

You can read her article here if you're interested- http://cmcforum.com/opinion/04302015-why-yes-can-mean-no

She isn't really saying it is rape. The closest she came to that was saying "we coined the term 'raped by rape culture' to describe what it was like". She's basically saying that there are situations that aren't rape by any definition the schools or legislatures could come up with that are still more like rape than we should be ok with and she thinks all the fixation on trying to come up with the perfect legal definition is distracting from fixing the bigger social problems underlying all this.

I'd say this is the National Journal twisting things for shock value, not the college paper. What they're really doing is click-baiting "men's rights movement" types.

 

I'd say if a woman had to choose between prostitution and her or her child starving to death, you could argue that she was "raped" by culture or the state of the economy

 

I've explained it quite clearly, why don't you read what I've already written instead of creating things you think I have said.

 

Females get drunk, screw a dude and regret it afterwards and then claim they were raped.... Regret doesn't equal rape...

No, they were not raped - they just made a bad decision..

 

choice does not equal rape??? Are you saying women should be accountable for the consequences of their actions and choices??? That is not very politically correct, i hope you know!!!!

 

Then I suggest you research consent laws, consent cannot be given if the person is not compos mentis, being drunk is not being compos mentis (Having full control of one’s mind) the onus is on the person suggesting the sexual intercourse to establish if the person they are asking is capable of consenting.

 

*unless you're a drunk guy

 

Nope, it works exactly the same for either gender, as I said you really should research and come to understand consent laws.

 

that's a great theory you have there.... that's for sure.

 

Again I suggest you read consent laws .. but I also know you won't as it would mean you having to actually face your incorrect assumption.

The FBI defines rape as “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.", no mention of gender in that.

There are three main considerations in judging whether or not a sexual act is consensual (which means that both people are old enough to consent, have the capacity to consent, and agreed to the sexual contact) or is a crime.

1. Are the participants old enough to consent? - Each state sets an “age of consent,” which is the minimum age someone must be to have sex. People below this age are considered children and cannot legally agree to have sex. In other words, even if the child or teenager says yes, the law says no.

2. Do both people have the capacity to consent? - States also define who has the mental and legal capacity to consent. Those with diminished capacity — for example, some people with disabilities, some elderly people and people who have been drugged or are unconscious — may not have the legal ability to agree to have sex.

3. Did both participants agree to take part? - Did someone use physical force to make you have sexual contact with him/her? Has someone threatened you to make you have intercourse with them? If so, it is rape.

Again no gender distinction, actually the third statement makes it very clear that it applies to BOTH genders.

 

how was I penetrated the time a female came and picked up my actively puking drunk self and had sex with me when she was sober, and I was drunk?

I wasn't penetrated AT ALL.... but I was beyond drunk, and I had no intentions of having sex with her sober (as I proved to myself the night before on the blind date I had had with her)

your penetration criteria is great if I'm ever gay raped.... but what happens when a girl has sex with a drunk guy?

again, if I have sex with a girl that is actively puking, but says she wants to have sex with me and I do.... and she later regrets it when she sobers up.... I'm a rapist.....

when I got drunk and initiated sex (and I did, 100%, initiate it in between puking), I was called an alcoholic on this board for doing it and it was suggested that I seek help for my addiction.

I wasn't threatened, or forced, just like drunk girls aren't always forced or threatened, or used coercion..... but if it's not date-rape when it happened to me, it's not date rape when she regrets it the next day either.

again, you seem to neglect applying it towards women whenever they do consent and even initiate sex while drunk.

and why when both parties are drunk, is the guy a rapist, and the woman a victim?

 

it also becomes an issue, even had I pressed charges against the girl who date-raped me, and she were found guilty, women get less time for rapes than men who commit the same crime.


Think about teacher/student rape. male teacher statutory rapes a 16 yo girl..... 20 years
female teacher staturtory rapes a 16 y.o. boy..... the boy is a hero, and the female teacher gets a few years.


like I said.... female rape.... less of a crime than male rape

and date rape of a male is laughed off and victim blamed, while the date-rape of a female is met with sexual predator lists

 

Beginning in 2013, rape is defined for Summary UCR purposes as, “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” The new definition updated the 80-year-old historical definition of rape which was “carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will.” Effectively, the revised definition expands rape to include both male and female victims and offenders, and reflects the various forms of sexual penetration understood to be rape, especially nonconsenting acts of sodomy, and sexual assaults with objects. Female-on-male rape are tried on the basis of a "made to penetrate" case which reflects the various forms of sexual penetration understood to be rape.

The onus is on you to consider if she is capable of consenting .. being drunk renders a person incapable of consent.

Not by me you weren't. In your case the onus was on her to consider if you were capable of consenting.

Threats, force or coercion are in fact forms of consent violation by the attacker. These are different from the capability of a person to consent .. if you take something from a drunk person even though they may have agreed to you taking it-it is still theft as they do not have the capability to consent, one must be of clear mind in order to consent.

nope, I am applying it to all regardless of gender.

That depends on prior interaction, you have already stated that you "had no intentions of having sex with her sober" therefore she is the one in the wrong. If she knew that you would not want to engage in sexual activity while sober, it is wrong and illegal for her to try to persuade you while intoxicated, even if you did consent.

Being intoxicated after voluntarily drinking alcohol is generally not a defence or excuse to rape. In rape cases where the alleged rapist is intoxicated, this fact may reduce the severity of the criminal charge, but a person may still be found guilty of rape or sexual assault.

 

That is a different issue and one I find utterly wrong, sentences should be equal no matter the gender.

Again very different issue, the sentences etc are not the issue here, what constitutes rape and whether it equally applies to females as well as males is . .though I will note that I am in complete agreement with you, the gender of the rapist should have no relevance to the sentence.

 

see, here is where you put blinders on. We both absolutely agree that they should get equal sentences.... but you refuse to look at reality that equal sentences just do not happen and the man typically gets more time for the same crime.

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2013/04/a_look_at_teacher-student_sex.html#incart_m-rpt-1

I'm not thinking you are suggesting that males get more time than females for the same crime (although, there are some on the board that do, even though they won't come right out and say it) That's the issue, rape is rape is rape.... but societal perceptions in cases like statutory rape, for instance, suggest the minor boy is a stud, and the minor girl is victimized. This slides to date rape type of situations. I led this girl on while drunk, she liked me, and when I suggested we have sex, she had no issues with the fact that I was plastered and actively puking. In this situation though, I was called a drunk, an alcoholic, and a jerk for leading this girl I had no intentions of dating on.

reverse the situation, and I pick up a drunk girl who then initiates sex, and I power through her active barfing, suddenly, I'm a rapist. If someone suggests that she was an alcoholic that should be ashamed of leading on a guy she had no intention of dating, they are "victim blaming".

I'm not denying that on paper, it's equal across the board. Enforcement however, is not.

so, in conclusion, yes, equal crime equal sentence..... on paper. in reality, however, that's not how it works and you either are closing your eyes to reality, or you are purposely denying it to push an agenda.

in the 1920s, on paper, blacks could vote..... however, reality tells us that wasn't always the case, now doesn't it.

 

I am not putting on any blinders . .however it is not the issue of the thread, it is in fact off topic, if you want to discuss sentencing then start a thread.