Kuro5hin.org: technology and culture, from the trenches
create account | help/FAQ | contact | links | search | IRC | site news
[ Everything | Diaries | Technology | Science | Culture | Politics | Media | News | Internet | Op-Ed | Fiction | Meta | MLP ]
We need your support: buy an ad | premium membership

Consenting to Rape

By farl in Culture
Mon Dec 25, 2000 at 03:28:09 AM EST
Tags: Culture (all tags)

She said it was so close to rape that the difference is moot. But strangely enough that is not how I saw it at the time, or see it now.

The story is sadly enough a common enough occurrence. The story is very familiar to many of us. A guy and two girls (me and my friend that I will call "Janet" and another girl who is on the periphery of this story so I won't go into given her a fake name) go out and party. Lots of beer, some drugs, dancing, good music, and lots of friends. All in all, a really good, fun night. So far nothing wrong. However, later that night, when we are crashed at my house, since my house is a block away from the after-hours night club and none of us was in a condition to drive, that's when it started to get a bit complicated. The three of us were crashed on my bed, M-F-F, sort of a triple-spoon. Janet was in the center. So "naturally" as I was spooned up to her, I was easily able to reach around her, and play with her. And this is where it gets even more complicated.

A few notes to the reader of this article: This article is meant for mature readers only. If you cannot be frank about sexual situations, please do not read this. Please read this article for how it is meant. If you want to send me death threats, hate mail and other rabid comments, merely email them to farl@sketchwork.com. Please do not put them here as comments as they do not readily help a discussion in any meaningful way. And please understand two important points. 1: This has not happened to me before, and 2. When I make gender generalizations, I am aware that I am making such generalizations, and that they are based on my experience in the world. If that experience does not match yours, please feel free to indicate so, but at least understand that my perspective might be valid, even if it is not right.

So a few of you might be asking what the problem is here. Well the main problem is that Janet was not really in the mood to play around. Not because of the fact that there was a third person in the bed, but rather that she has a fiancee. Yes as I said, this is complicated.

But let us start at the beginning. Janet is actually a friend of the other girl that we were with. I have known the other girl for many years, and we are really good friends. I had only met Janet that night. We all went out, and we went to go see "B-Side Players and Wise Monkey Orchestra". For those of you who are good at research, I will spare you the trouble and tell you that that places us in San Diego, California. Anyhow, unfortunately we arrived too late to see B-Side, but the WMO was really good, especially live (they are not so fantastic on CD in my opinion). We danced, drank and had a lot of fun. At about 1:45am we went to this after-hours party I knew of.

At the after-hours, we ran into a lot of mutual friends, got VERY SILLY drunk, had a lot of fun, and generally danced around to the great musical talents of a really great DJ. During this time, I was dancing with yet another girl, when Janet came over to us and told me "You look so hot dancing with this other girl". And yes, while I am as far from graceful as possible on the dance floor, the girl I was dancing with was very smooth and very beautiful, so I suppose that made me look good. I certainly was enjoying myself. But to say I was shocked by Janet's comment is an understatement.

Janet is exceptionally beautiful. About 5'3", nice figure, beautiful face and hair - and very athletic. Basically a knockout. Someone that I would speak to, but not really expect to go out with (and yes, I am quite shy and self-depreciative, or so my friends say). So I was shocked at this frank admission from her, especially since the last exchange we had had was about her fiancee. To complete the irony, she followed up with the line "but I am really in love with my fiancee, so I cant fuck you. Otherwise I would." I hope it is not just me that hears that and similar statements from the other sex and wonders why the comment was even said in the first place.

Well we talked about this for a little bit (while I was dancing still with this other girl too who was mostly listening in on the conversation). And basically it came down to me saying "nice offer, I am flattered, but thanks for the not-offer". I hope that makes sense anyhow. So I forgot about it for the while, and continued having fun.

Later that night, round about 5am, I was sitting with Janet over in a quiet corner, just chatting to her. And yes, I did have my hand around her while I was giving her a massage (stop laughing you all! So what if it is typical, it is still fun). She was happily enjoying it as we snuggled closer while chatting. About 6am, we found our other friend and left back to my house. So the three of us are spooned on the bed. My friend is asleep, while Janet and I are snuggling closer and closer as the night goes on (well as the dawn progresses anyway). By this time, she has turned to face me, and my hands are wandering. Needless to say, we are both enjoying ourselves.

At one point, the concept of her fiancee surfaces in my mind again, and I ask her if she is enjoying herself, and/or if she wants me to stop. She tells me that it feels good, but doesn't answer the second question. A long while later, we both finally go to sleep. And no, we don't actually have intercourse, but we do get each other off. From my opinion, a really great night.

In the morning is when the problems arise. My friend has remained asleep for the whole thing, so she knew nothing about anything that had happened. So I can safely leave her out of the rest of this story. Janet, however, was very upset with me. She begins to tell me how I basically "raped" her. Her logic followed the lines of "Well you knew I had a fiancee, you knew I was very drunk, you shouldn't have taken advantage of that." Now I will be the first to admit that this is a good argument. All of it is true. BUT... She never asked me to stop when I asked her several times if she wanted me too - it was totally concentual. She replied that she never responded to that question.

At the time, she was leaving with my friend, so we never really let the argument go further than that. But it did bother me, and still continues to do so. I feel that I was perfectly okay in my behavior and actions, and that she was sober enough to adequately judge her situation. In regards to her feelings for her fiancee, I feel that no amount of alcohol should change that. It is not like I forced myself on her, and even though she never answered my question as to whether I should stop or not, she CLEARLY did not tell me to stop, and CLEARLY enjoyed herself too.

In the end, I feel that what happened was perfectly okay, and not "rape" (as she actually called it in the morning). Have similar situations happened to you? I would be interested in hearing about your experiences and what the long-term results/consequences of the events were.



Voxel dot net
o Managed Hosting
o VoxCAST Content Delivery
o Raw Infrastructure


Related Links
o farl@sketc hwork.com
o Also by farl

Display: Sort:
Consenting to Rape | 266 comments (179 topical, 87 editorial, 0 hidden)
legally, you're f*cked; morally, you're right (3.23 / 21) (#8)
by streetlawyer on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 12:47:56 PM EST

The legal position is quite clear -- someone who's drunk can't give consent, therefore it's rape. Well, not all that clear, I suppose, because there are degrees of intoxication, but I wouldn't like to be you if she decided to press charges. Which has been known, particularly if she wants to represent the story in a slightly different way to the fiancee. But I wouldn't scare yourself too much, under the circs; no intercourse means that it's going to be deucedly difficult to prove what happened.

Morally, two drunk people got off with each other. End of story. No blame, no shame. Assuming it happened the way you say it did. I've never held with this "clear permission" stuff; not because date rape isn't a real and genuine problem, which it is. Not because it isn't a man's responsibility, because it is. But because it's completely inaccurate as a model of human relations. i'd chalk this one up to "consensual sex acts", and try to do it again.

Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever

Why I rated down (3.50 / 6) (#23)
by maynard on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:04:33 PM EST


usually I have a high regard for your opinion and commentary, but I had to rate down that comment because of this quote at the end, "i'd chalk this one up to "consensual sex acts", and try to do it again." No farl. Don't try this one again. Do NOT engage yourself sexually with a drunk stranger who is in a committed relationship. Sure, involve yourself with any adult partner who will consent while sober. But do NOT make that same mistake twice.

No offense SL, I just think that tag line at the end was bad avice given the context. I'm sure you meant "go out and have as much fun as you can" but given the context the meaning was a bit ambiguous.


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

Helas, you interpreted me correctly (3.00 / 7) (#39)
by streetlawyer on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:19:00 PM EST

You overestimate me. My advice, stripped of paraphresis was thus: "Farl, try to have a drunken sexual encounter with that particular girl, Janet, again". I say this because:
  • I don't have much respect for the "fiancee" relationships of college age people. College age people have no business being engaged to be married, and most of these relationships are either the first flush of young lust, or desperate attempts to keep home-town relationships alive when the partners go off to school in different towns. The first kind is stupid, the second kind is tantamount to emotional blackmail, and I'm not aware of any other kind.
  • I believe that Janet actually wants to get rid of her fiancee and have a (probably short term) relationship with farl, and I don't see why she shouldn't get what she wants.
  • I'm not in the camp that believes that it's bad to be drunk and have sex, either one at a time or both together. It's actually a rather good way of getting the amting game going. People who can handle their drink can be trusted not to coerce others while drunk; people who can't shouldn't be drinking under any circumstances.
Thanks for explaining why; I think that, in the circumstances, you were justified in doing what you did. I also have high regard for your posts, though all my accounts are set with "Rate: no" by default.

Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
Fiancee Tag (3.50 / 4) (#108)
by Mad Hughagi on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 04:08:56 PM EST

Hmmm... since we are going to discuss this on merits of opinion I feel somewhat devalued by your generalization of college age people. There is nothing wrong with committing to a monogamous relationship if that is what both people really wish (it doesn't seem to be the case in this case, however).

I get what you're implying, and I would have to agree with your observation, but I feel that the approach you have outlined (and what you have implied of Janets actions) leads to many problems.

We are left out in the dark as to Janets intentions, that is what the problem is in general here. Farl assumed she was all for an open encounter, and it later turned out that she seemed to jump tracks. Personally (I'm presenting an opinion here, I'm not saying it's right, but I feel that something should be said) I feel that the fiancee tag definately warrents some serious attention in this matter.

Regardless of whether or not there was consent, or any other of the conditions presented in this case, the fiancee tag modifies things with a serious amount of weight. When one accepts the condition for a monogomous relationship (I'm assuming this is the case - marriage as far as I'm concerned is just a finalization in regards to where you place your interests) the partners are expected to adhere to that commitment. If they are going to get out of it, having sexual encounters with others is definately not the way to go! Janet, and Farl for that matter, have done more damage to the unknown other than to one another in this case (that is who I feel sorry for).

Janet (although the degree of her drunken state might warrent against this) should have never even considered these kinds of actions if she was truly interested in her commitment. Farl, knowing that she was engaged, should have taken this into account. Regardless of whether or not she wanted to screw around, he should have realized that there was one other person that would probably end up with the worst feeling ever. Is it justified to ruin someone elses feelings for a night of simple pleasure? As far as I'm concerned Janets potential significant other is the one that will lose, no matter what. Perhaps Farl would have been better off discussing this with her and if she decided that she wanted to make her engagement void she could deal with it appropriately (ie - talking to her partner instead of fucking around on him, to put it nicely).

I dunno, maybe I'm letting my own experiences burn too hot here, but that is just my take on it. You never feel quite the same about a relationship or relationships in general after someone you genuinely love shows you how much you mean to them by sleeping around.

I think I'm going to have to go to my diary now...


We don't make the products you like, we make you like the products we make.
[ Parent ]

sorry for any personal slight (2.50 / 2) (#145)
by streetlawyer on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 02:23:56 AM EST

which was unintended, but it is my experience that all college-age engagements are bad things, and that their eventual collapse is, in the wider scheme of things, a positive life event for both parties.

Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
addendum (2.40 / 5) (#49)
by streetlawyer on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:32:13 PM EST

However, I would entirely agree with your point that the law regarding these issues is a) clear and b) fine as it is.

Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
Quite the contrary... (4.41 / 12) (#34)
by michaela on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:09:23 PM EST

I believe she made it clear early in the evening when she said "...but I am really in love with my fiancee, so I can't fuck you..." That means no sex. Period. Even in spite of her adding "Otherwise I would."

In my area (not sure if it's national or just local) there's a bus-stop poster campaign running. It shows a gorgeous, sultry, young woman with the word yes repeated 30-40 times around her. There's a line from her mouth to a single "no" and the tag line on the ad says "Even if everything around her says yes, if she says no it's still rape."

Morally, it does not sound like those two drunk people were in any condition to give consent. Absent actual consent, it's rape.

If he's lucky, very lucky, she won't press charges. Either way, I hope farl has learned something from the experience.
That is all
[ Parent ]

I don't understand your moral point (3.00 / 8) (#51)
by streetlawyer on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:36:21 PM EST

To clarify: I think that the current law on rape is fine how it is, and it is the way you described it. Any change of law which might favour rapists should not count on me for support. But ethics can afford to be more subtle than law, and I'm not sure you've worked through the implications of your thinking on this:

Morally, it does not sound like those two drunk people were in any condition to give consent. Absent actual consent, it's rape.

This would imply that all acts of sex between intoxicated parties were rape. Which would have to imply that all acts of drunken sex were bad, or that some acts of rape were not bad. I'm not happy with either of these conclusions as ethical judgements (though I'm not sure whether it makes sense to bring the legal term "rape" into an ethical discussion, or how much of its legal baggage is carried with it).

Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

Poorly worded on my part (3.00 / 3) (#91)
by michaela on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 02:55:35 PM EST

I ended up with that statement after cutting out a bunch of stuff that I felt made it confusing. While I won the battle, I lost the war. It's still confusing.

To elaborate on my point: Based on farl's story, she said no earlier in the evening. Intoxication ensued. She a) never countermanded her earlier "no" and b) she wasn't in a condition to say "yes."

Speaking to morals and ethics, I was raised such that what farl did was unbelievably wrong. From his story, he was apparently raised in a way that what he did was OK. Who's morals are right?

Sexual assault is probably more accurate than rape to describe this situation in most states.
That is all
[ Parent ]

I disagree (3.00 / 11) (#56)
by theboz on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:40:47 PM EST

I believe she made it clear early in the evening when she said "...but I am really in love with my fiancee, so I can't fuck you..." That means no sex. Period.

Well, I have to disagree only because saying something one moment doesn't mean she couldn't change her mind later. I do think it was kinda stupid for him to initiate the act because it sounds like she would have anyways, but in any case I don't see this as rape. It just sounds like this girl is a stupid slutty bitch. In fact, if I was her fiancee I'd dump her anyways but that is another story.

The problem is that as in most cases in the U.S., you are guilty until proven innocent, and even after being proved innocent you still suffer in many ways. I think these women should be punished for saying rape just because they feel guilty about what they did later. There's too many cases of child abuse and *real* rape out there for our court systems to waste time on bitches like this anyways. I don't think alcohol makes it rape, and I don't think the fact that she didn't tell him to stop when he asked makes it rape either. Now, I may be wrong about the true situation because we are only going on the word of one party involved, but based on the facts available I think the girl was just full of shit. It would be best for the author of the post as well as her fiancee to dump her and get away from her as quickly as possible.

[ Parent ]

Flip side (3.20 / 5) (#95)
by michaela on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 03:05:30 PM EST

If she changed her mind later she should say something along the lines of "I want to have wild monkey sex with your, fiance be damned." Of course actual wording will vary, but the point is that she would need to have specifically countermanded her earlier "no." Her clearly initiating the act would, in my mind, be sufficient. Accidental brushes while fighting for more blanket wouldn't cut it.

To me, the story was worded in a way that implied that he started it. As wasn't there, I can't say for sure, so I won't speak to her character. I do find it questionable since farl indicated that she reciprocated in some way.
That is all
[ Parent ]

BS (3.75 / 8) (#64)
by paxtech on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:49:18 PM EST

She wasn't unconscious, she participated, she didn't say no. That's NOT rape. She then woke up in the morning and REGRETTED what she did while drunk. Then, to make herself feel as though she's not responsible for cheating on her fiancee, she cries rape.

Try switching the story around. If Farl had been the one with the fiancee, said things to the girl that could EASILY be misconstrued, fooled around with her all night, then cried rape in the morning, would you sympathize with him?

I'm not trying to excuse date rape, it happens every day and is totally WRONG. Just as wrong, though, is a woman crying rape because she regrets something she did while drunk, and has now chosen to absolve herself of ALL responsibility by blaming the man she was with for "taking advantage" of her. As a society, we've gone from always assuming the woman asked for it, to now always assuming the guy took advantage, so it's NEVER the woman's responsibility at all. She got in the bed with him! She participated in the events.. but she was drunk, wahhhh.. People do things while they're drunk that they regret later. If you refuse to take responsibility for your own actions while drunk THEN DON'T F***ING DRINK!!!!!!!

/me puts on asbestos underwear..

"Eggs or pot, either one." -- Ignignot
[ Parent ]
Counterpoint (3.25 / 4) (#99)
by michaela on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 03:19:25 PM EST

I don't really sympathize with either of them. But that doesn't matter either. What they did was stupid on both sides of the situation. I find it hard to sympathize with stupid people when they should know better.

They were both stupid because they got intoxicated to the point of clouding their judgement. She was stupid for getting in bed with him. He was stupid for not making her sleep on the couch. Based on the way the story was written, he wins the award for initiating the mutual hand-job.

If he's lucky, he won't go to jail for it.

And yes, if the sitation was reversed, it would still be sexual assault. Society's perception is that the guy always wants it so that's a much harder case to make, but it's still there.
That is all
[ Parent ]

Clouded judgement? I think not! (2.80 / 5) (#101)
by farl on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 03:21:05 PM EST

We both knew what we were doing. No clouded judgement there.

[ Parent ]
Shared guilt (3.25 / 4) (#116)
by aphrael on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 05:49:41 PM EST

I believe she made it clear early in the evening when she said "...but I am really in love with my fiancee, so I can't fuck you..." That means no sex

Yes. And there's no question but that it's the responsibility of the other partner to respect that.

Yet at the same time ... there's a guy I know, that i've had sex with in the past, that at one time I had an *enormous* crush on ... and some things happened involving other people (which i'm not at liberty to discuss) which caused me to no longer consider him a reasonable or worthwhile person --- which he knows. That said, i'm confident that if I were drunk enough, he could get me to have sex with him; the physical attraction is still there.

If that happened, would I have any right to be pissed at him in the morning? I went along with it; I put myself in a situation where it was likely to happen; i'm at least as culpable as he is, in that scenario.

I think that level of analogy applies to this case, as well --- both of them did something stupid, and both of them share the guilt and the moral culpability; and it's not reasonable for either of them to try and cast all of it on the other one.

[ Parent ]

Important to note (3.50 / 6) (#73)
by blixco on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 02:03:21 PM EST

As you mention, we don't really know what the situation was at all. "Assuming it happened the way you say it did" implies a lot. He's proven that he can't be trusted...so is he telling the whole truth? Does he even know the whole truth? I appreciate that the author was very forthcoming, and the tone isn't nearly as defensive as some would make it out to be, but it is just him telling the story. Maybe she was too terrified to say anything negative to him, shamed or guilted into calmly saying "it feels good." He may not even know. He should never have been in such a damn fool position to begin with.

I mean, that's a complete disregard of personal liability.

The root of the problem has been isolated.
[ Parent ]
2 drunk people (3.50 / 4) (#111)
by retinaburn on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 05:08:33 PM EST

Can it legally be rape if two drunk people pursued each other without either party saying "No" ?

If she does try to pursue a court-case (which is doubtfull) charge her with rape back, and perhaps sexual harassment for what she said on the dance floor...and let the lawyers have a field day.

I think that we are a young species that often fucks with things we don't know how to unfuck. -- Tycho

[ Parent ]
Intoxication != consent (4.07 / 26) (#13)
by maynard on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 12:51:34 PM EST

I would say that you acted with extremely poor judgement. While I have no moral problem with all sorts of sexual behaviors out of the norm, I think it's safe to say that relying on intoxication as an excuse for irresponsibility is simply not acceptable. So, from a legal perspective this would probably be considered a sexual assault and not rape if she pressed charges. And it's unclear exactly whether a prosectuor would be willing to follow through -- that would depend on if your other friend was a witness to the event, and if she (your partner in this) at any time verbally protested. If she said nothing, that doesn't mean consent. However, it does mean that she didn't directly tell you to stop. If she at any time tried to push you away, that would be immediately considered revoking consent.

This probably won't wind up in court unless there's physical evidence or a witness. However, I would strongly recommend you reconsider such behavior in the future. Involving yourself with multiple partners, polyamory, a homosexual lifestyle, et al is (in most states) perfectly legal as long as it's consented by and with adults. Here are some good rules of dick(thumb): Never involve yourself with someone under eighteen. Never rely on drugs or alchohol to "soften" a date up before making a pass. Always be clear and take time to get to know someone (several weeks and/or dates if not more), before getting sexually involved. You might also want to consider testing for STDs beforehand as well. Oh yeah, I'll say again: Never involve yourself with someone under eighteen!

IMO: You really fucked up. Learn from this mistake or the next time you may well be in court defending yourself from a rape charge.


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.

Cowardice. (4.13 / 15) (#32)
by Farq Q. Fenderson on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:08:44 PM EST

I think it's safe to say that relying on intoxication as an excuse for irresponsibility is simply not acceptable.
Which I agree with fully. People should be held responsible for their actions. Even so if they'd gotten trashed first, their hindered judgement is one of the many consequences.

If she did not revoke consent because she was drunk then I would put the blame on her. I think it's pretty bloody cowardly to turn around and say, oh, I was drunk, I didn't know what I was thinking.

This isn't defence of the "liquor 'em up" strategy, it's just the way I see things. I won't even do anything sexually with anyone while drunk if I think they'll regret it in the morning. Sometimes I'm a little slow to make that call, though.

The point is, to allow yourself to do things you'll regret and then blame someone else because you were being irresponsible is cowardice.

farq will not be coming back
[ Parent ]
Cowardice or not, rape will land you in jail (3.53 / 15) (#37)
by maynard on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:17:08 PM EST

Whatever you want to believe about how fair the legal system is over rape, consent issues while intoxicated, whether women have more rights than men while claiming rape; none of that matters to farl. What matters is that he has put his life in jeopardy by acting in a manner which exposes himself to a potential rape charge. Should she press charges this will -- at least -- damage his credibility for life -- at worst -- leave him with a felony rape conviction and jail time.

Look, this is nothing to fuck around with. And frankly, given that far more men than women commit actions of sexual violence I'm on the side of enacting strict laws defending women's rights. I think that her claiming that farl committed an act of rape is pretty close to right. Given what he has admitted to, it may only be a sexual assault -- not rape, per se -- but it's still damn irresponsible. He KNEW she was in a committed relationship. He KNEW she was intoxicated and as such unable to consent in any sober manner. He also KNEW that he didn't know her well enough, or closely enough, for the sexual trist to turn into a serious relationship. Given this he should have known that she could very well claim rape or sexual assault and be within her rights.

That's what I believe.


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

Some questions (3.52 / 17) (#42)
by farl on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:23:37 PM EST

He KNEW she was in a committed relationship.
Obviously she wasnt very committed was she.

He KNEW she was intoxicated and as such unable to consent in any sober manner.
She approached me in the club SOBER and told me that she wanted to fuck me. Regardless of how she prefaced it with comments about her having a fiancee, she came up to ME and unsolicitedly said that.

He also KNEW that he didn't know her well enough, or closely enough, for the sexual trist to turn into a serious relationship.
I dont always look for serious relationships. There is nothing wrong with a one night stand. (all STD risks aside that is).

[ Parent ]
Ridiculous questions (3.72 / 18) (#57)
by maynard on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:40:54 PM EST

I will answer each in order:
jmg: He KNEW she was in a committed relationship.

farl:Obviously she wasnt very committed was she.

Totally irrelevant. When you want into a courtroom and the prosecutor places into evidence that engagement ring, this is proof of a committed relationship. Period. Look, men and women have adulterous relationships all over the world... they're still in committed relationships with their husbands and wives (the same goes for those relationships outside wedlock, though our society still gives special treatment for those married).
jmg: He KNEW she was intoxicated and as such unable to consent in any sober manner.

farl: She approached me in the club SOBER and told me that she wanted to fuck me. Regardless of how she prefaced it with comments about her having a fiancee, she came up to ME and unsolicitedly said that.

If you have a witness to that it might help. However, it doesn't matter if she said yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes. She still said NO!
jmg: He also KNEW that he didn't know her well enough, or closely enough, for the sexual trist to turn into a serious relationship.

farl: I dont always look for serious relationships. There is nothing wrong with a one night stand. (all STD risks aside that is).

I'm not making any moral arguments here about how you should live your sex life with consenting partners. If you can find sober partners who wish only one night stands, that is your business. But fucking drunk strangers is inviting exactly the mess you're in right now... my recommendations, not on moral grounds alone but because of how rape law is structured today, never engage in this kind of behavior again.

It's your life. Go ahead and risk criminal charges if you like.

Now, my ethical and moral compass tells me that what you did was wrong. Not because it's out of wedlock sex, or because both of you were drunk, but because the consent was ambiguous to begin with. You should have known that she wasn't certain if she wanted to continue with this course of action; and if you recognized even a hint of this you should have stopped immediately. Period. And for the record, I have no problem with polyamory, homosexuality, one night stands, multiple partners at once, sadomasochism, et all -- as long as it's conducted by and with consenting adults. I may not engage in this behavior, but I'm not out here preaching a morality which would criminalize such conduct.



Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

Why I scored your otherwise excellent comment &quo (3.28 / 7) (#70)
by DontTreadOnMe on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:58:12 PM EST

If you have a witness to that it might help. However, it doesn't matter if she said yes yes yes yes yes yes no yes yes yes yes yes. She still said NO!

Based on what I have read, at no time (other than the next say, hours after the fact) did she say "no." Could you please clarify what you mean by this comment (or what I overlooked)?

http://openflick.org - Fighting Copyright with Free Media
[ Parent ]
No? Yes? Were either said? (2.00 / 5) (#81)
by jfpoole on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 02:13:19 PM EST

Based on what I have read, at no time (other than the next say, hours after the fact) did she say "no." Could you please clarify what you mean by this comment (or what I overlooked)?

Perhaps a better question is whether she actually said yes at some point. She didn't clearly give her consent (from what appears in the article), so as far as I'm concerned she didn't consent.


[ Parent ]

If you're trying to dump all the blame on her... (3.55 / 9) (#80)
by marlowe on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 02:12:24 PM EST

forget it. It doesn't work that way, at least not in the adult world. Blame is a quantity, not a discrete object. She can be plenty to blame without absolving you.

-- The Americans are the Jews of the 21st century. Only we won't go as quietly to the gas chambers. --
[ Parent ]
Rubbish (5.00 / 1) (#262)
by Robert Gormley on Sat Dec 30, 2000 at 01:43:31 PM EST

Your comment on him knowing she was in a committed relationship (commitment questionable based on the "you're so hot I'd like to fuck you right now, but for my fiancee" - commitment would mean to me not thinking such things, let alone saying them to the object), but your comment leads to open slather adulterers going into divorce court and saying "But he knew I was in a committed relationship. That alone implies I didn't consent! Rape! Rape!" which is nonsensical.

[ Parent ]
what about her? (4.11 / 18) (#36)
by mikpos on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:12:02 PM EST

Either intoxication is an excuse for poor judgement, or it's not. If it is, then he can say "oh I was drunk when I did that" and it's a valid excuse. If it's not, then she her willingness to go along with it while she was drunk is a form of consent. You can't have it both ways. Either they both had poor judgement and both are to blame, or they both had good judgement and neither are to blame. I don't see how he could be charged with rape if she was just as responsible as he was, though.

[ Parent ]
Well, well, well. (3.55 / 18) (#17)
by simmons75 on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 12:58:03 PM EST

Heh, for those of you who aren't from the U.S., this can be legally defined as rape. A woman is considered to be in no condition to give consent. Even if you get consent from an intoxicated woman, it's still not consent. Men, however, are 100% responsible for their actions even it they're just as "silly drunk" as the woman. I can't help but think of a case a few years ago at Brown University where a student got a blowjob from a drunk girl and was later charged with rape. Brown, which was an ultra-feminist school at the time, almost expelled him and considered passing legislation that would automatically expel any student with rape *charges* against him.

Now, you might think I'm claiming reverse-discrimination, but I'm not. All I'll say is that, if you don't want to get into one of these legally ambiguous situations, avoid the situation altogether.
So there.

A Point... (2.50 / 10) (#22)
by Electric Angst on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:04:16 PM EST

If you're sober enough to remember, you're sober enough to do something, particularly if you're the guy. Yes, your judgement may be impaired, but you don't go jumping off of roof-tops, no matter how drunk you are. You sholdn't be attempting to fuck someone who really doesn't want it.

"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
Equal standards of behavior? (4.63 / 11) (#44)
by DontTreadOnMe on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:26:47 PM EST

If you're sober enough to remember, you're sober enough to do something

That is fair enough, as far as it goes. However, if one is sober enough to "do somthing", one is most certainly also sober enough to give consent.

particularly if you're the guy

Here your argument begins to fall flat on its face. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for men to be held to a different standard of conduct than women. If an intoxicated male can consent to sex, so can an intoxicated female (assuming roughly the same levels of intoxication for both). The only difference between men and (some) women is physical strength, which would only come into play if force were used, in which case the situation would unambiguously be one of rape, regardless of the gender of the person using force.

No, one should not attempt to fuck someone who really doesn't want it at the time. Neither should one make accusations of rape to fend off their own guilt at having done something willingly that they happen to regret later, nor should one partner be expected to guess at the future feelings of the other -- determining consent at the present should be enough.

Equal standards regardless of race/religion/gender/etc. is what the whole notion of "equality" is. It is high time we adhered to the ideals, particularly when it comes to criminal law and such things as the definition of rape.

http://openflick.org - Fighting Copyright with Free Media
[ Parent ]
there is every reason for different treatment (2.81 / 11) (#54)
by streetlawyer on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:40:02 PM EST

There is absolutely no reason whatsoever for men to be held to a different standard of conduct than women

There is the best reason in the world; the fact that many more men are rapists than women. The propensity is greater, so the need for unambiguous and maximally cautious rules is that much greater.

Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

tripe (4.62 / 8) (#74)
by Arkady on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 02:04:28 PM EST

In a society with any pretentions of fairness, all rules must be made for and applied equally to all the citizens. This means no singling out any class of citizens for either special benefites _or_ special persecution.

If your society claims that fairness is a goal, then you have no excuse for having discriminatory laws.

Besides, you don't even need them in this case. Yes, many more rapists are men than women (in fact, I personally have trouble coming up with one female rapist incident) but that can be dealt with by a single law forbidding non-consensual sexual contact with set standards of consent. It's not difficult, you know?


Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Things fall apart; the centre cannot hold;
Mere Anarchy is loosed upon the world.

[ Parent ]
Women rapists - unequal ground (4.00 / 4) (#164)
by jabber on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 11:13:00 AM EST

Well, there's LeTournau, or however her name is spelled... The school teacher who has had two children by one of her students...

The things about rape is that if a man is not in the mood, it just ain't gonna work - while a woman's "availability" in the physical sense does not vary with willingness to have intercourse.

Rape is a crime of violence and abuse of power/force, in a sexual context. We all know this.

Where women abuse power and force over men, in a sexual content, is not called 'rape', it's called 'seduction'. If we were to add up all the 'home-wreckers', 'sluts', 'gold diggers' and women who knowingly seduce men who are already in committed relationships - we'd probably see similar numbers to the total of male rapists.

Let's take a glimpse back at the Clinton-Lewinsky thing... Did he molest her and abuse his position of power? Did she seduce him and score a trophy by leveraging her sexuality against a weak-willed man? Society tends to blame the man, but is it really fair to absolve a woman of responsibility for seduction?

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

say what? (4.33 / 3) (#201)
by blaine on Fri Dec 22, 2000 at 12:09:31 AM EST

The things about rape is that if a man is not in the mood, it just ain't gonna work - while a woman's "availability" in the physical sense does not vary with willingness to have intercourse.

Either you are a woman, or an inexperienced man, because this is one of the most blatantly untrue things I've ever heard.

I'm a guy. And guess what? Even if I'm not "in the mood", it is entirely possible to make me "available", as you put it. In fact, it does not take that much effort. And I know that I'm far from abnormal in this respect.

There are two main reasons that there are more male rapists than female:

  1. Men are typically stronger than women

  2. It is easier (physically) for a man to rape a woman. To be a bit graphic: he simply has to pull her pants/skirt down/up, and stick it in. This can be done by forcing themselves upon the woman.

    Women, on the other hand, have to get the man's penis out, get it erect, hop on, etc. This is almost an impossibility without physically restraining the man beforehand. (ie. tying them up)

"Availability" , as you've put it, has nothing to do with the reasons for rape.

[ Parent ]
Oh please... (2.00 / 1) (#209)
by jabber on Fri Dec 22, 2000 at 02:32:08 PM EST

Next time you're 'available', concentrate on the 'to be or not to be' passage from Hamlet. Presto chango! I don't know a single man, past the age of, oh, 17, that can not make his little friend go away without so much as a change of focus - myself very much included.

Now, spiking a drink with Viagra and Rohypnol might complicate things quite a bit - and would certainly be a case of rape. But watch how quickly your 'availablility' changes when someone unexpected, like a parent or a child, walks into the room.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

Errm, no (3.00 / 1) (#218)
by spiralx on Sat Dec 23, 2000 at 04:06:36 PM EST

Next time you're 'available', concentrate on the 'to be or not to be' passage from Hamlet. Presto chango! I don't know a single man, past the age of, oh, 17, that can not make his little friend go away without so much as a change of focus - myself very much included.

Yeah sure if there's nothing else going on at the time, but if you're being actively stimulated (as the case would be in a rape) then it's a different situation. Having an erection is *not* a fully consciouss thing and you can't just turn it on or off at will regardless of outside stimuli.

Jesus, don't you ever get those annoying early morning boners that don't go down? :)

You're doomed, I'm doomed, we're all doomed for ice cream. - Bob Aboey
[ Parent ]

Errm, yes and no.. (none / 0) (#249)
by jabber on Wed Dec 27, 2000 at 01:01:50 AM EST

Ever have something on your mind, something that preoccupies you to the point of not being able to keep it up despite your best efforts? Work or family problems? Bills looming? Something major gnawing at your gut?

I know that very many men, myself included, would not be able to keep it up if their heart and mind wasn't in it. And it certainly wouldn't be in it if 'it' was against your will.

Yes, being 'had' in your sleep, or drugged/altered somehow (physical restraint presumed) makes a man's rape by a woman possible. But, unlike the typical case of a woman's rape by a man, the situation has to be sexual enough to turn the man on - and I stand by the statement that this won't happen without seduction or some sort of artificial means - like mind or body altering drugs or devices. In any case, a much greater effort than a man's rape of a woman.

A woman can't just jump out of a bush or a dark alley, get you 'up' and have her way with you. Not going to happen. The 'seduction' is a major factor.

Now, date-rape of a man by a woman... There's an interesting territory. "He was asking for it! Look at the way he was dressed...". After a few drinks, even the most committed man would be likely to lose his inhibitions and self-control to the point of a sustainable hard-on.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

Oxymoron (none / 0) (#263)
by Robert Gormley on Sat Dec 30, 2000 at 01:47:06 PM EST

Gee, could the reason that many more men are rapists than women be that the definition of rape is nonconsensual sexual penetration (usually implying penile)?

And that is the very wrongest reason anyway.

Parallel: In Australia, boys did much better in sciences than girls. Why? Supposedly, according to feminists, because girls felt they could not compete, or were being treated unfairly. Upshot? Girls had a choice - mixed or female only science classes. Boys had no option. Likewise many other classes. You know what happened? The scales tilted so heavily in favour of girls that the reverse situation was true, and much more than would be expected from "maybe girls are better than boys".

Equality is about equality, not stamping hard on the other side of the scales in a futile attempt to level them.

[ Parent ]

I never said she was right... (3.14 / 7) (#61)
by Electric Angst on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:46:56 PM EST

...but there's a difference between her stupidity and his innapropriate behavior. It's not just about gender, either. First of all, he remembered about her finance. He remembered what she said to him earlier in the night. That alone should have been enough. Second, he initiated. If you're drunk and engaged and suddenly this hot chick you liked but wouldn't fuck started rubbing you, would you stop her? If things continued, who'd be more to balme, you or her?

She was stupid. He was stupid and wrong.
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
One More Thing... (3.55 / 9) (#28)
by Electric Angst on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:07:10 PM EST

No, this can't be defined as rape. Rape = penetration in the eyes of the law. No penetration, no rape. If charges were to be pressed, they'd be for sexual assault.

"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
Reverse-Discrimination (4.00 / 8) (#60)
by FyreFiend on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:46:28 PM EST

I've never understood that. If the guy is just as wasted as the girl how is he responsible for what he did but she's not?
Hell, back a few years ago I got completely drunk off my butt and ended up having sex with a girl that cold sober I wouldn't even think about being with (She wasn't my type at all physically and her personality left much to be desired).
I was pissed at my self (and my friends for not stopping me) but I could only blamed myself. It wasn't her fault, even though she was fairly sober at the time (her words). I knew there was a chance of hooking up with someone that night and I should have had enough sense to not get that drunk.

I just don't understand...

(I do NOT drink like that anymore. I'm lucky that the only think I carry from those days are bad memories)

Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial "we".
-- Mark Twain

[ Parent ]
Morally Wrong. (3.62 / 16) (#18)
by Electric Angst on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 12:58:50 PM EST

What she did while she was drunk was stupid, what you did while drunk was wrong. Yes, you may have been inebriated, and yes, she may have been comming on to you, but even if she had wanted it, why would you agree to while she had a fiance? Why fondel a drunken girl in bed when you know she wouldn't allow it sober?

It doesn't matter how drunk someone is, it is wrong to do sexual things with them that you know they wouldn't want you to do when sober. If this girl should cry rape or not, I'm not sure, but you did violate her trust, and I hopes that she learns to be more careful who she gets drunk around in the future.
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
Not rape (3.30 / 13) (#21)
by ocelot on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:01:54 PM EST

Assuming that things really happened as you said they did, this is not rape.

A male has no more responsibility to end sexual contact for moral reasons than a female does. (This is assuming, of course, that there isn't some sort of obvious power differential (ie. a large age difference or one person being intoxicated to the point of not being able to say no)).

Also, she's the only one who can maintain her own faithfulness to her fiance. That's her responsibility, not the responsibility of others.

Personally... (3.29 / 17) (#25)
by Zeram on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:06:00 PM EST

I don't think you did anything wrong. I've been in the simmilar situations many times myself. It seems to me that the reason that she said it was rape was because she felt guilty. I know that might not be a popular opinion, but what really is the difference between your actions when you are drunk and when you are sober? Lower inhibitions? Well all that means is that the things you are really thinking are more likely to come to out.

For all the people who say this isn't a K5 type story, scroll up to the top of the page and read very closely: "technology and culture, from the trenches" How is a discussion on rape not a cultural discussion?

One final note, if she decides to press charges, chances are you are screwed, I don't know specifically about California, but in most states if a woman doesn't give explicit consent she can claim rape. At any rate though, don't feel bad, it doesn't seem that you did anything wrong, but be careful.
Like Anime? In the Philly metro area? Welcome to the machine...
Next-Day Regrets... (4.26 / 34) (#26)
by Parity on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:06:08 PM EST

Next-day regrets have been around as long as sex has been around, and her reaction is perfectly predictable. ('Something happened that shouldn't, therefore it must be his fault, because if it wasn't it'd be my fault, and I know it -wasn't- my fault...' subconscious non-rational reasoning, of course, if you say it out loud it sounds stupid.) So. Well, it's somewhat hypocritical but we'll all have to live with it, thus far.

However, I do very much feel that it's -very- wrong to say, 'I had sex that I don't want to have had, therefore it is rape!' The semantics of 'I had sex that I don't want to have had' and 'I had sex that I didn't want to have' might be a tiny difference in wording but it is -worlds- apart in meaning. Next-day regrets are not rape, and it is very dangerous to claim them as such. (I have heard of situations like this where the man involved was taken to court; obviously, when I've 'heard' that, the woman admitted what really happened; I don't know how many cases there have been where the story evolved, probably through self-deception, and either sent someone to jail or ended with a 'not enough evidence' verdict and a cloud over the person... )

I may be going off a lot on semantics here, but it's a really short step from saying 'rape' to pressing rape charges, or being coerced into pressing rape charges (once you say it's rape, all your friends encourage you to press charges, hire private investigators, hide in a women's shelter until the case is over, etc.) The more false rape charges that are filed, the more likely false rape charges will be exposed loudly in the press; once the public believes that false rape charges are filed 'all the time' it will be -much- harder to convict real rapists. They'll be essentially immune barring an impartial eyewitness, which is pretty unlikely, or incontrovertible medical evidence, which is pretty unlikely for different reasons. (3 days later when you're over the first shock is too late for any medical evidence to be anything but questionable.)

Oh, and by the way, about the -worst- thing you could is confront her directly with the argument I just outlined. That would essentially guarantee her hatred forever. Also, if you're going to go around getting involved with multiple partners, or people who have multiple partners, or other 'complicated situations', you should read 'The Ethical Slut' by Dossie Easton and Catherine Liszt. (The title is perhaps controversial, however, the content is essentially relationship management skills from a slightly skewed perspective.)

Parity Mark

I totally agree. (none / 0) (#256)
by StackyMcRacky on Fri Dec 29, 2000 at 11:45:56 AM EST

sooo many women call rape when they regret something they did. it angers me. having been raped myself let me say this - when you are honestly being raped, you FIGHT LIKE HELL to make him stop.

when somebody is gentlemanly (?) enough to ask you if you want him to stop, and you don't say anything, that means "i want to, but i shouldn't because of <whatever>, so if i don't sayanything then it isn't really my fault" in my mind.

perhaps "Janet" needs to rethink her engagement.

i have so much more to say about all of this, but there is just too much swirling through my head to allow me to express myself in any decent manner. please accept my apology for this half-assed post.

[ Parent ]
Let this be a lesson for you... (4.15 / 20) (#27)
by Dougan on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:06:53 PM EST

She begins to tell me how I basically "raped" her. Her logic followed the lines of "Well you knew I had a fiancee, you knew I was very drunk, you shouldn't have taken advantage of that." Now I will be the first to admit that this is a good argument. All of it is true. BUT... She never asked me to stop when I asked her several times if she wanted me too - it was totally concentual. She replied that she never responded to that question.
I sympathize with your situation -- I've found myself in (somewhat) similar situations before. The big problem, however, is that even though you inferred (and I would be inclined to agree with you) that the activity was consenting, modern gender politics dictates that even if you ask her if she consents, and she does not say no, consent is not implied. There is even an argument (and people such as yourself have found themselves in a whole lot of trouble over this) that says that even the explicit verbal consent of an intoxicated person is not enough to constitute consent. Go figure. This is why, no matter how clearly you consider the activity to be consenting, it is never a good idea to engage in sex acts with people you do not know (at least somewhat) well.

Unfortunately, for some reason in our culture, this doctrine is not really a two-way street -- she "got you off" too, but if you went to the police and accused her of rape, I can only imagine the reaction. Men always consent, right?

I really hate the political climate surrounding gender issues right now; women are held to a completely different standard of accountability than men, even when the context of the actions is similar, and there is no coercion due to force. All I can say is good luck to you.


women can't commit rape (3.75 / 12) (#48)
by streetlawyer on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:29:06 PM EST

Men always consent, right?

This is actually the legal position in most jurisdictions; on the part of a man, physical consent is assumed to indicate consent. Women can't commit rape, and men can only be raped by other men in the legal sense.

Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]

Women can and do rape men (4.94 / 18) (#63)
by DontTreadOnMe on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:49:01 PM EST

As a male who has been raped by a woman (and felt very lucky to get out of that situation alive) I can tell you that this is one of the worst legal fictions I have heard in a long time (and I have quite a list of absurd legal fictions that peeve me).

There are at least two ways a woman can rape a man (where rape means what common sense would imply, namely that one is forced to have sex against one's will):

  • restrain and around the man against his will, then mount him and ride him to completion. Contrary to popular myth men can be aroused against their will and even brought to a physical orgasm despite vehement opposition.
  • strap on a dildo and forcefully enter and fuck the male rectum

Don't kid yourself. Women, as human beings, are just as capable of rape as any man is, and legal jurisdictions which do not recognize that fact are positively neandrathalic and deserving only of our deepest contempt as human beings.

http://openflick.org - Fighting Copyright with Free Media
[ Parent ]
I'm sorry; I only meant to state the legal positio (3.81 / 11) (#69)
by streetlawyer on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:56:57 PM EST

The second of those is considered to be assault rather than rape; the law does not, as it stands, recognise the first, though it would seem doubtful that it could be carried out without also committing an aggravated assault.

Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
Exceptions ... (3.75 / 4) (#115)
by aphrael on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 05:41:37 PM EST

Women can't commit rape,

Can women rape other women, legally speaking?

[ Parent ]

Re: Let this be a lesson for you... (4.20 / 5) (#93)
by forgey on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 02:57:20 PM EST

Ok, look at it this way.

  • They didn't have intercourse
  • She "got him off"
  • They were both intoxicated

Following your logic he didn't give her consent, he was intoxicated and she "got him off". She raped him as well.

The guy showed really poor judgement and did a very dumb thing (imo), but it isn't rape. If they had intercourse instead of mutual masterbation then she may have gotten away with it, but he would have a very hard time forcing her to "get him off" if she wasn't willing to do so. The simple fact she was a willing participant (non-verbally) should be enough to squash any legal problems that may arise. Her being intoxicated shouldn't be a defense. If she had passed out and this ocurred, that is a different story, but plain intoxication is never an excuse for anything.


[ Parent ]

Drugs? (2.80 / 10) (#35)
by farl on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:11:08 PM EST

Well i didnt get her a rufy... that would obviously be rape in ANY circumstance.

We were smoking weed though...

[ Parent ]
Forgetting meeting women in bars then.. (3.00 / 9) (#47)
by farl on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:29:06 PM EST

So basically forget about ever meeting some girl in a bar and taking her home (or meeting some guy in a bar and taking him home). You can always claim rape in the morning.

[ Parent ]
Well... (3.51 / 35) (#31)
by trhurler on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:08:40 PM EST

First off, that chick is a bitch. She got what she wanted, and now she's trying to avoid having to feel guilty about it by saying you raped her. I feel sorry for her fiancee, and I really hope he dumps her before it is too late.

Secondly, you're an asshole. You knew she was engaged, and you fooled around with her anyway. You certainly didn't rape her, although state laws in various places may disagree, but you ARE an asshole. The only way that could ever possibly be justifiable is if she and the fiancee were both of the opinion that they should be free to do as they please despite their relationship, and this clearly was not the case here.

Third, you already knew all this, and if you want to know whether you're guilty, you need to hire a lawyer, so why did you even bother to post this?

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

Guilt. (3.50 / 12) (#38)
by Farq Q. Fenderson on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:17:28 PM EST

If this were some random chick and I were in farl's situation, I would not feel the slightest bit guilty.

If it were someone I cared about, then it would depend on how much I valued her relationship with her fiancee, 'cause that's what this boils down to.

Would that make me an asshole? Maybe, but does it matter? It's my responsibilty to ensure that I have the best life I can, and it's her responsibilty to do likewise. So, how I feel about it depends on how I feel about her.

farq will not be coming back
[ Parent ]
Caring, guilt (2.87 / 8) (#46)
by trhurler on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:28:20 PM EST

If it were someone I cared about, then it would depend on how much I valued her relationship with her fiancee, 'cause that's what this boils down to.
Well, no. If it was someone you cared about, then it would depend on how much SHE valued her relationship with her fiancee. That's what "caring about" someone else means. Perhaps you should look into this subject of "caring" more closely.

In any case, I didn't say he should feel guilty. Lots of assholes don't. However, there is a difference between what is morally acceptable and what is socially acceptable. He may be able to justify his actions to himself without rationalizing - but he's not going to find many others who will support him, because most people don't regard fooling around with other peoples' fiancees as being in good taste, regardless of whether they think it is actually wrong to do so.

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Almost. (2.83 / 6) (#55)
by Farq Q. Fenderson on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:40:05 PM EST

Almost, but not quite.

I meant what I said. If I fucked up a relationship that I cared about, I'd feel bad. If I fucked up one I didn't care about, I wouldn't care. I stand by what I said.

farq will not be coming back
[ Parent ]
Not what I said... (3.50 / 8) (#66)
by trhurler on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:51:46 PM EST

The statement I made wasn't about how you'd feel. What I'm telling you is, if her opinions and feelings mean so little to you that you don't mind fucking up a relationship she's happy with just because you personally don't care about that relationship, then you don't really care about HER. You might care about having sex with her, or maybe you like to hang around with her, or whatever(maybe all of that,) but you don't care about her, because if you did, her feelings and desires WOULD matter - and she obviously does not want you to fuck up her relationship.

There seem to be a great many people, not all male, as commonly supposed, but probably more male than female, who honestly can't understand this notion. Even more seem to understand it as long as it doesn't conflict with THEIR lives, and then all of a sudden they forget. A truly sad situation.

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
You missed again. (3.33 / 6) (#75)
by Farq Q. Fenderson on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 02:06:56 PM EST

You don't have to think all the same things as someone you care about. You don't have to feel bad because someone you care about does. Even if it's your fault.

If I do care about a girl, and she is in a relationship that she cares about, I will probably care about it. But I might not.

What if he was an evil bastard that was going to kill her, but she didn't believe it, and loved him? Just to give one (extreme) example. I would feel good about fucking that up BECAUSE I care about her.

I'll refrain from rating your comment because I disagree so strongly with what you're saying that it may be hinder my judgement.

farq will not be coming back
[ Parent ]
Hmm... (4.20 / 5) (#86)
by trhurler on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 02:29:40 PM EST

Ok, fine, but I will insist that I was writing in a context, and that the context provided did not include any such element as "She is being abused by her fiancee." If you want me to write a treatise on the precise correct behavior in every possible circumstance, then you're going to have to pay me for the years of effort it will take and convince me that it is even possible. On the other hand, if you want to know what I think of a guy who messes around with a girl who's apparently happily engaged and who he has only just met, but who is a friend of his good friend, then you've read that.

A guy I'm sitting here talking to seems to think alcohol was more important than any other aspect of this matter. I'll clarify my position on that directly: they were both drunk. Had he been sober, I'd have reacted quite differently, but in this case, intoxication does more than make her vulnerable to doing something she wouldn't otherwise do - it also does this to HIM. If you're going to try to claim she wasn't responsible and therefore he did something wrong, then you have to admit that HE wasn't responsible, in which case he can't have done anything wrong. Of course, the truth of the matter is that regardless of whether EITHER of them did anything wrong, they are BOTH responsible for whatever it is they did. She deliberately didn't stop him, and apparently participated willingly(at the time,) and he apparently started the whole thing. Being drunk might have made either or both of them do things they wouldn't otherwise do - IMHO, that's a risk you take when you choose to get drunk, or to do drugs, or whatever, barring the obvious "she was passed out and he jumped her" scenario. That's why I generally only get drunk when I have friends around that I know I can trust to keep me out of trouble.

I would agree with the assertion that there are circumstances under which your friend is more important to you than ANY given aspect of his/her life, and if that aspect is harmful to the friend, then maybe you do something about it. The problem I have is that too many people think, and yes, I'm right about this one, that caring about someone means "spending effort to make her fit MY idea of what is good in life" and that's what you sound like in your posts - but maybe that isn't really what you mean. Hard to say, really. That's the thing I DON'T like about web forums: context is not available.

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Christ, the sexual politics of an ape (3.76 / 17) (#45)
by streetlawyer on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:26:58 PM EST

Sorry, had to make the subject line as strong as possible, because trhurler doesn't read my posts. If anyone else wants to take him to task over this, you might want to consider the following points:
  • "Bitch" is a very unpleasant word to use when you don't know the specifics of the case. In these circumstances, the girl is likely simply to be striking out, out of guilt. She in fact does not appear to have informed either the authorities, her fiance or mutual friends, suggesting that she is not being malicious. In the circumstances, the epithet is utterly disproportionate.
  • The sentiment "I hope her fiance dumps her", or that he deserves sympathy, is again underinformed. In my experience, most college age girls with a "fiance" are the victims of emotional blackmail by home-town boyfriends who use marriage in order to extract vows of fidelity and save themselves from finding a new friend. In any case, relationships are complicated things, and to immediately assume it is all the woman's fault based on a second hand account of one incident, shows that trhurler is not exactly looking out for chances to give anyone other than the man in the situation the benefit of the doubt.
  • Farl is not an "asshole because you knew she was engaged". We can notice from this utterance that trhurler regards it as more morally reprehensible to fool around with a woman who is engaged than one who is drunk (and thus in an ambiguous situation with regard to consent). The reverse is of course the case; the supposition that farl is bound by a third party's property rights over Janet is the most offensive part of this post.

Just because things have been nonergodic so far, doesn't mean that they'll be nonergodic forever
[ Parent ]
Politics is always murky (3.25 / 4) (#125)
by Mrs Edna Graustein on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 07:36:58 PM EST

"Bitch" is a very unpleasant word to use when you don't know the specifics of the case.
the epithet is utterly disproportionate.

If the shoe fits... I would hardly call accusing someone of rape the actions of a nice girl. While I agree with you that there are reasons to the way she was acting, and Bitch is strong, Trhurler always uses strong vocabulary and from Farl's article she did encourage him at the time. Also if you notice, Trhurler did call farl an asshole- hardly exclusively blasting her.

Farl is not an "asshole because you knew she was engaged". We can notice from this utterance that trhurler regards it as more morally reprehensible to fool around with a woman who is engaged than one who is drunk (and thus in an ambiguous situation with regard to consent).

It is the combination that is bad- if she was not drunk there could be far less question of consent, but if she was drunk but not engaged and at a party, and "She approached me in the club SOBER and told me that she wanted to fuck me." (Quoting a post by Farl- the part about being engaged now being irrelevant) earlier, I would take that as consent (barring a later NO). If she were engaged, I would however consider that the default for her wishes were to stay faithful to her fiancee, and that would count with me as a definite no.

The reverse is of course the case; the supposition that farl is bound by a third party's property rights over Janet is the most offensive part of this post.

No- I would assume that Janet was bound over by her agreement to the engagement, and as a friend of hers he should respect that. It takes two people to consent to an engagement and if she did not feel moraly bound by it she should have broken off the engagement. The point is not that Farl is bound over by a third person's property rights, it is that Janet should be bound over by her own actions, and Farl as a friend should respect that.
And if any of you put that in a .sig, I'll hunt you down and kill you twice. ;-)
[ Parent ]

What an offensive and pig headed view. (2.92 / 13) (#89)
by maynard on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 02:53:44 PM EST

Wow trhurler, could you express a more reprehensible and chauvinistic view than what you wrote? I mean "First off, that chick is a bitch." What class. You remind me of Chad, that misogynist character from LaBute's film a couple years ago "In the Company of Men". Really. I rated your comment a 0, and I stand by that rating. Did you even consider the fact that Janet (the woman in this case) can't defend herself here and probably doesn't even know of this who disscussion? How do you think she would feel about your comment toward her?

Frankly, I think your attitude toward women sucks.


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

Certainly, taken totally out of context... (3.50 / 8) (#100)
by trhurler on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 03:20:26 PM EST

you can probably claim that I'm some depraved asshole. However:

If it were a girl doing this to a guy who was engaged, I'd say the same damned thing. That doesn't really fit with your claim that I'm some misogynist pig now, does it? I didn't think so.

Of course, in order to portray me as some anti-woman hatemonger, you've conveniently ignored the large proportion of my post dedicated to calling him an asshole, leaving only the part where I called her a bitch. In the past, I've noticed you doing similar things: you zero in on one statement which, taken totally out of context, can be made to look bad. This, in case you don't know it, is one of the most asinine and childish things you can do when arguing about something.

The fact is, she participated willingly at the time, and then complained later, and he did what he did despite the fact that he had to have known it wasn't in his best interest and that he was going to end up hurting her feelings. Now, perhaps "bitch" and "asshole" were a bit strong, since they were both apparently quite intoxicated at the time, but in general, they do express the sentiment I intended. Neither of them is blameless, but probably the right thing to do is for both of them to say "hey, I was drunk, and that was stupid, and I'm not going to do that again" and then move on.

By the way, zero ratings are for spam and trolls - not comments you find to be offensive. If you don't know the difference, you can buy a clue by clicking on the faq link and reading carefully.

'God dammit, your posts make me hard.' --LilDebbie

[ Parent ]
Agreed. Changed to a 1. (2.66 / 6) (#104)
by maynard on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 03:26:53 PM EST

Agreed. I found your post to be offensive, but not content free. The other arguments you make in your reply simply sidestep my previous point. I stand by what I wrote. --M

Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]
short and sweet (3.00 / 22) (#41)
by el_guapo on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:23:02 PM EST

this is NOT rape. Hell, she even RECIPROCATED. Silently getting off with someone who is not your significant other and then trying to blame that person is lame. If she had tried to move to the other side of the bed and you stopped her; if she had, oh I dunno, said STOP. Noooo, what did she do? She got you off as well. Sorry - BZZZZZZZT - rape? NO.....
mas cerveza, por favor mirrors, manifestos, etc.
If you are a real gentleman (3.55 / 18) (#50)
by maketo on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:35:36 PM EST

1. You will not mess with a drunken lady
2. You will not do to someone else what you dont want done to you (basically, how would you feel if you were the fiancee) 3. You will take care of the drunken lady in a honorable way, not take advantage of the situation.
This said, it was not rape. She knew what she was doing. However, what bothers me is that society has been and is getting even more - ammoral. This woman has a fiancee (who I feel sorry for). She is obviously loose. If you are a real gentleman you will stay away from people like this.
agents, bugs, nanites....see the connection?
What I wanted to say was... (2.60 / 5) (#52)
by maketo on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:37:55 PM EST

...find your self a real woman with self-respect. Any woman that respects herself and treats her self right will not engage in the behavior you described. Reciprocically, any gentleman with self-respect wont either.
agents, bugs, nanites....see the connection?
[ Parent ]
Aren't you responsible for your actions? (4.00 / 22) (#53)
by blixco on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:38:16 PM EST

OK: you're drunk and you've got hormones doing really wacky things to your brain (probably more powerful than the drinking). You have a fiance, but you're drunk and the hormones are there...you are in a vulnerable position. The person you are with would have to be someone you trusted enough to *not* feel you up. You're not in your right mind, you're not even close to rational....so you're gonna' need someone who is worthy of that trust. And you know what? You're not with someone worthy of *any* trust.

Yes, she was probably attracted to you. She was flooded with hormones, but when sober those hormones are checked by the rational mind. She was not rational. She may have issues with her fiance. She may have problems with sex in general. She may have an infinite world of issues that she's normally occupied with....but there you are, and you're not acting responsible.

This is an "unguarded bank" question. Does the fact that Scrooge McDuck style bags of cash are lying around unguarded make it OK to steal them? Even if the teller smiles at you while you walk by? Even if the cop on the corner looks the other way?

You were wrong, and the girl wasn't smart. She should know better than to trust a guy she doesn't know, she should know better than to be drunk and in bed with a guy she doesn't know, and she should certainly know better than to be drunk in bed with a guy she doesn't know but is mildly attracted to. The hormones override common thought.

But it is up to you to police your own actions. You were not acting in a responsible manner. You showed no respect for her position or for her fiance (is that one "e" or two when there's no accent mark available?). You showed yourself to be weak. Personally, profoundly weak. You Should Know Better...the tone of your post says so.

Streetlawyer says the same thing, really, in a much more succint fashion. You should indeed get a lawyer. And maybe start acting smart...think about the situation you are in. Protect yourself...and protect others who *can't* protect themselves.

I'll maybe email the author later, if he feels it will help.

The root of the problem has been isolated.
Whoops.... (2.60 / 5) (#67)
by blixco on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:53:23 PM EST

....I attributed something to streetlawyer that wasn't from streetlawyer. I hate it when I do that.

And typically, so does streetlawyer.
The root of the problem has been isolated.
[ Parent ]
Responsibility (3.66 / 6) (#129)
by CyberQuog on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 08:00:33 PM EST

How about her being responsible for her own actions? He asked her if she was having a good time, she said yes. He asked if she wanted him to continue, she said nothing, he didn't stop. Yes, he probably should have stopped at that point, but I get so sick and tired of people always blaming it on the men. At no point did she try and stop him, and according to the story she seemed to have a good time. I'm well aware this doesn't hold water legally, but she didn't say yes or no. If she didn't want it to continue, she could of said she was having a horrible time. She could have slapped him, she could have ripped dick off. And, when she said that he knew she had a finace, well, she knew she had one, so why couldn't she say something? I get the feeling that they were equally fucked up, so don't blame it on the booze. The guy who wrote the story seems reasonable enough, he probably would have stopped if asked.

[ Parent ]
Spelling note (1.50 / 2) (#146)
by sinclair on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 02:52:35 AM EST

fiance (is that one "e" or two when there's no accent mark available?).

It's one 'e' for masculine, two for feminine. The man is a fiancé and the woman is a fiancée.

Second, you can get the accented 'e' in HTML-formatted postings by using é.

[ Parent ]

Accented e (3.00 / 1) (#162)
by spiralx on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 11:00:42 AM EST

What I think you meant to post was that you can get the accented 'e' in HTML using &eacute;.

You're doomed, I'm doomed, we're all doomed for ice cream. - Bob Aboey
[ Parent ]

Yes, exactly... (none / 0) (#194)
by sinclair on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 07:44:41 PM EST

...and in fact, that's what I posted! Somehow my post got changed from the explicitly written-out HTML entity name (verified by preview) to just the entity.

What the?!

[ Parent ]

Another Viewpoint... (4.05 / 19) (#68)
by Electric Angst on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 01:56:24 PM EST

(Excuse the country grammer, but I don't know how much longer this story has before it gets voted down...)

Okay, guys (since a large population of those answering here seem to take the male point of view) let's look at this another way...

You go out to a club with a guy and a girl who are friends of yours. You're engaged, and are just relaxing while your finace is away.

During the night, you talk with the female friend, you even mention that she's very attractive, and you wouldn't mind getting with her if you weren't engaged. During the night you're drinking, a lot. In fact, all three of you are drinking. When it's time to go home, you realize that there's no way you should be driving, and so you all agree to stay at the same place, and return home later. You and your two friends conk out on a single bed.

Then, you realize as you lay there, exhausted and drunk, that the female friend of yours is touching you. It feels good. Hell, she's hot and this is nice. You begin to fool around, and she asks if you like it, and something about your fiance. You're to drunk to really answer, though. You just like what's happening.

Then, the next morning, you're sobered up. You realize what happened, and that you really didn't want to do those things. She initiated it while you were drunk and exhausted, and took advantage of your state.

Now, does this make things any more clear?
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
It makes it very clear (3.77 / 9) (#77)
by DontTreadOnMe on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 02:07:23 PM EST

Your inversion of the gender perspective makes it very clear that what happened was not even remotely akin to rape.

Insensitive on his part, yes.

Foolish and irresponsible on both their parts, yes.

However, it appears (based on what has been told to us) that it was consensual on both their parts, and that while she may have had regrets later, and from her perspective feel that he "initiated it" (remember, from his perspective she was blatently coming on to him all night, even saying outright how much she wanted to have sex with him, then ending up in bed with him at the end of the night -- from his perspective she initiated it), accusations of "rape" are so far out of line as to be patently absurd. I've experienced the real thing, and this isn't even close.

http://openflick.org - Fighting Copyright with Free Media
[ Parent ]
Was it rape? (3.85 / 7) (#97)
by Electric Angst on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 03:09:41 PM EST

Was it rape? No. Sexual Assault? Quite possibly, depending on how honest he's being. Morally detestable? Most certainly.

He broke trust, and now he's trying to feel better about it by using the greater claim she made out of regret as a straw-man argument. Obviously he didn't rape her, but he should be ashamed of himself.
"Hell, at least [Mailbox Pipebombing suspect Lucas Helder's] argument makes sense, which is more than I can say for the vast majority of people." - trhurler
[ Parent ]
I'm less certain of judgements, both pro and con (4.75 / 4) (#105)
by DontTreadOnMe on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 03:33:09 PM EST

Was it rape? No. Sexual Assault? Quite possibly, depending on how honest he's being.

Taking what he said at face value I do not think what he did could be construed as sexual assault, barring absurd definitions of "consent" dependent on blood alcohol levels for one party and not the other or other equally inequitable legal fictions.

That having been said, I agree that we've only heard one side of the story, so for purposes of discussing some of the issues and problems with the current balance of values and legal definitions it is a worthwhile discussion, but as for passing specific judgement on this specific situation and those involved we lack some important data.

Morally detestable? Most certainly.

I am less certain of this, although I am inclined to agree with you. Questions remain (to me at least) as to how much of this was "his initiating what happened" and how much was hers? Did his initiation amount to a sensual stroke to which she enthusiastically responded (and later regretted) or did he spend a half hour "seducing" a reluctant partner? If the former, my judgement would disagree with yours, if the latter, I would agree with both this judgement and the prior one you offered. Again, we have only heard one side of the story.

The external relationship between the fiance and the woman is between them, and IMHO has no bearing on the poster's moral or ethical standing. It is neither his relationship nor his responsiblity, and as others have pointed out, "college age engagements" are suspect more often than not, and certainly not diserving of the same consideration as a marriage (of whatever age) would be.

It all boils down to whether or not there was coercion IMHO. Consent can be given in many forms (verbal and otherwise), then regretted later, but the bottom line is did he coerce her in some fashion (peer pressure, insistence until she reluctantly said "ok," or arousing her against her protestations) or not? If so, what he did was reprehensible in the extream, if not, he is at most guilty of poor judgement.

http://openflick.org - Fighting Copyright with Free Media
[ Parent ]
Gender Switch does make it clear (3.50 / 2) (#142)
by vlnc on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 12:22:56 AM EST

Also, If I were the guy in this "switched" version of events, i would feel guilty. Perhaps the female in the original feels the guilt, yet, is in denial and is looking for someone to blame other than herself. As for the story making it to K5, I am uncertain if it is appropriate.

[ Parent ]
RE: Another Viewpoint (none / 0) (#156)
by thejeff on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 08:51:29 AM EST

Morally, it seems about the same to me. Legally, bearing in mind that in the original both parties were very drunk, the situation is exactly the same: He can be accused of rape nnd quite possibly be convicted. She wound not be convicted. thejeff

[ Parent ]
K5 Hairshirts Now Available (3.09 / 11) (#82)
by eskimo on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 02:13:54 PM EST

I am sorry, but I don't think this will provide much useful discussion. At best, I think that the inevitable tirades about responsibility will help you on a personal level, but any debate on who was less responsible when two drunk people mutually masturbate seems sort of 'Love Lines' to me.

I am not too active in the diary part of k5, but I think this is the perfect forum for this tale of woe.

For a rundown of the pain caused by the night though, how about this: she hurt you, by turning you into the other man and a possible rapist, you hurt her by turning her into a pre-adulterer and a possible victim, and she hurt her fiance by prematurely cuckolding him. Was it really worth it when you consider you could have probably done it better yourself in the morning? When she tells her fiance, the circle will be complete. And she will. Partners share their guilt. Self-flagellation is a gyp. She'll hand the whip over, I guarantee it.

I originally had this marked as 'editorial,' but it became sort of 'topical'...

I am my own home. - Banana Yoshimoto

Consenting While Drunk (3.81 / 11) (#96)
by reshippie on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 03:06:47 PM EST

If you were both under similar intoxicating influences, and those influences make her actions of choice non binding, then you shouldn't be legally held accountable for your actions. IMHO, though, IANAL.

--I'm assuming she took some initiative in touching you. If that is not the case, and you actively encouraged her to do those things, well, then I change my mind, but I'm going to stick to the assumption that she chose to touch you of her own (inebriated) will.--

I don't think you are really morally WRONG(tm), but at the same time you were not morally RIGHT(tm), either. I've done some rather dumb things while drunk, and I know that I probably wouldn't have done them sober. While I don't think that actions between 2 drunk people should result in any kind of legal or social punishment, I do feel bad for those things.

So basically, you were both wrong, and you should be feeling guilty for what you did, but that's about it, in my book anyway.

Those who don't know me, probably shouldn't trust me. Those who do DEFINITELY shouldn't trust me. :-)

Drunkenness and Consent (3.20 / 5) (#110)
by Anonymous 242 on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 04:33:53 PM EST

I am not of the opinion that in this case what is good for the goose is good for the gander.

There are two entirely different questions in play here. The first is: can someone under the influence of alcohol legally give consent? The second is: is someone who is drunk liable for their actions that harm other people?

If drunken individuals were not liable for the harm they create, then DUI would not be criminal. It seems to me that the courts have decided time and time again that if one chooses to become drunk and harms others, then one is still liable for the harm one has committed.

On the other hand, courts have also decided time and time again that people drunk past a certain point can not legally enter into contracts. Similiarly, I'd argue that someone who is intoxicated past a certain point can not give true consent for sexual acts.

Is this a double standard? I'm not entirely convinced that it is. A good case could likely be made that it is a double standard, but I doubt that any sufficiently large group of people would come to any sort of consensus on it.

Take all of this with a salt table or two. I am not a lawyer and my words should not be construed as legal advice.

[ Parent ]

Level Playing Field (4.00 / 3) (#112)
by reshippie on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 05:08:35 PM EST

If both people are in the same state, sober or intoxicated, then I feel that they should be on the same level. If one was drunk and the other sober, I would feel differently.

As for a drunk driver, they are endangering the lives of people who have no say in the matter. But if say, a few sober people hopped in car with somebody that they knew was drunk and there was an accident, then I don't think those sober people would have any reason to whine. If they were drunk, well, I dunno, IANAL, I'm just pulling this all out of thin air. :)

Those who don't know me, probably shouldn't trust me. Those who do DEFINITELY shouldn't trust me. :-)
[ Parent ]

Too much noise... and my thoughts (4.00 / 12) (#98)
by nstenz on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 03:15:44 PM EST

I'm at work, and there's just way too much noise for me to actually read all of the comments in this discussion... So I'll just say this:

I have a friend or two that craves attention... It makes them feel good. They won't say yes to someone, but they won't say no either, because they don't know how to stand up for themselves... So they just say nothing. She didn't say no, so it's iffy... and you said she seemed to be enjoying herself. Well, get my friends drunk and they'll do pretty much whatever... But when the next day comes around and they sober up, I know damn well they'll say they were taken advantage of...

And- You don't screw around with someone who's involved in a relationship! No matter what. If she really likes you that much, she'll break up with whoever she's with first. Of course that doesn't apply to stupid druken nights - which is why you don't let that kind of thing happen. I'm sure there are many judges who would agree she's justified in charging you with rape. I'd be careful if I were you. Although technically it wouldn't be rape; it would be sexual assault - but it's damn close to the same thing.

Aggravated Sodomy (3.75 / 16) (#120)
by eskimo on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 06:58:20 PM EST

That's what they call it in my state.

I am my own home. - Banana Yoshimoto
[ Parent ]

Dont know about you... (1.66 / 9) (#121)
by farl on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 07:07:20 PM EST

But sodomy means something different when you comes out of the hills into civilisation...

[ Parent ]
Yeah, and Here's What It Means... (4.33 / 6) (#131)
by eskimo on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 08:18:04 PM EST

Try the second definition here. As far as I know this is also the definition used by the United States Military, according to the Universal Code of Military Justice. With a little research, you'll probably find that the sodomy laws in your area aren't just pertaining to male/male sex. A guy at my college had aggravated sodomy charges raised against him for performing cunnilingus on a drunk girl.

I really like that you assume I am from the hills. I guess you guys spell 'civilization' different from us too.

I am my own home. - Banana Yoshimoto
[ Parent ]

Wow, he's factually accurate. (4.66 / 3) (#132)
by maynard on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 08:25:25 PM EST

Aggrevated sodomy IS what most states laws would call this. Either that or sexual assault. I'm surprised by these 1 ratings...

I don't support mixing sodomy laws with rape in a combined set of sex crimes statues. So I've said in several of these posts that I feel that whatever sober adults do together consentually is their business. So, I don't agree with most state's laws which criminalize homosexual behavior, oral sex, or anal sex. If it's consentual, it's their business. That said, what the original poster wrote was accurate. This is why I've placed a rating of 5 to attemp to offset the 3 rattings of 1.


Read The Proxies, a short crime thriller.
[ Parent ]

Thank You... (2.50 / 2) (#139)
by eskimo on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 11:12:04 PM EST

I think they thought I was questioning the rapist sexuality. It's obvious he likes semi-conscious women.


I am my own home. - Banana Yoshimoto
[ Parent ]

It's been said before, (4.30 / 36) (#117)
by misterluke on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 05:50:37 PM EST

but here it is again:

1 - you shouldn't have done that.

2 - she shouldn't have done that.

3 - you both did do that.

4 - the alcohol didn't do that.

5 - the weed most certainly didn't do that.

6 - blaming the drugs is a dodge of your responsibilities and hers.

7 - chivalry may be dull, but it keeps you out of most of the smellier piles of shit out there

8 - I'm glad I'm not in the same smelly pile of shit you are.

9 - that said, you should be able to work it out if everyone is cool about it. TALK TO HER.

10 - every piece of advice I give comes straight out of my ass. Use with caution.


hmm. (3.66 / 6) (#119)
by hkeith on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 06:31:44 PM EST

Yow. Fascinating issue.

As farl tells it, I don't consider it rape. At the time, both of them were fine with it. In the morning, one of them decides she wasn't fine with it. Consent is not retroactive - you live with the consequences of what you did, even if you were drunk.

Now, this applies to both of them - he has to live with the consequences as well (say, if her fiance finds out and comes after him with a baseball bat). However, I don't believe that means that she can later decide that she didn't consent, and bind him to that even though she did not communicate that to him - he was not notified, so it can't be binding.

Unfortunately, the political climate in this country is strongly biased towards the woman in cases like these (where it is just her word against yours). If she starts making legal threats, he should see a lawyer before he says anything that could come back to haunt him.

That said, I'm still not sure how to vote. I wish it were more cleanly written - not necessarily more impersonally but with a clearer progression of events and less rambling narrative - but it's already generated some decent discussion.


I would have done what you did (3.07 / 13) (#128)
by Friendless on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 07:52:18 PM EST

Farl, she was allegedly in a relationship, so she shouldn't have done that. You weren't in a relationship, so you were free to do what you wanted. According to your story, it was consensual, and that makes it NOT RAPE. You had the common sense to ask her whether she consented, and that demonstrates that you were interested in whether it was consensual. It seems that at no time did she ask you whether you consented! Look at it like this: she's a big girl now, and she's supposed to be able to look after herself, drunk or stoned or however she chooses to be. You are not a rapist merely because you are male.

I will be labeled a Puritan or some such but... (3.76 / 25) (#138)
by anlprb on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 10:44:05 PM EST

   What ever happened to the concept of being a gentleman? What happened to the thought of waiting until marriage for any type of sexual experience? I see this as someone who has little to no self-control, and even less respect for the people that he hangs around with. Let me explain. I understand, being a red-blooded American boy that my role (as defined by US popular culture standards, AKA Bill Clinton) is to be the good-old-boy, sexual preditor. With our society, it is seen as OK if a man takes many partners, and holds no remose. It is seen as one giant joke. "HA, HA, there he goes, at it again." But I believe that we need to take responcibility for our actions. He really should not have let himself get into a situation like this. Take the women home, leave them at their doors, or if that is not an option, sleep in another room. The floor of the bathroom is always an option. But there was no though about what would happen in the morning, was there? Only the moment. That is one of the worst things that has happened to our culture, no thought of the future. We are selling ourselves shorter and shorter each day.
   But hey, remember, he got himself off, that is all that matters, right, immediate gratification. With respect to marriage, I am not looking at it from some religious background, I see it as a sanctuary. A place where you have finally pledged that this is the person who you can trust totally, and completely. This gives you the complete comfort and security that is necessary to make a sexual relationship healthy. He had absolutely no responcibility to or guarentee from either woman that there was any security or caring. He basically got what he deserved. Neither woman, (notice I say woman, and not Lady) had to let him do anything to them, there was no bond there. No caring, nothing. When something as sensitive as sexuality is involved, you must be extremely careful, or accept the consequences of your actions. He obviously cannot. He keeps saying "It's not my fault, she did not tell me to stop." Please, grow up. When you are actually ready to accept everything that comes with taking from a person, be that either emotional or physical, accept your actions, and try to find a secure, healthy environment to explore those feelings. Singlehood and sexuality do not mix in that regard. When you accept someone (yes, I know about the high divorce rate in the US, my uncles are both divorced, and are paying for it everyday, both monetarily and with not seeing their chidren) accept them for everything they are. Be there for them, forever, and never let petty differences come between you. And until you are ready to accpet the consequences of your actions, wait, and this will not happen to you.

Whoa! (3.50 / 6) (#143)
by djkimmel on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 01:41:18 AM EST

Someone like me here - cool!

I wouldn't exactly call myself a puritan, since I have a very sick mind and don't hesitate to show it, but I would say I have morals.

I don't really care about no sex until marriage, since marriage isn't that important to me. But no sex unless its with someone I'm in a monogamous relationship with is a must. So being "fuck buddies" with someone, even if it is monogamous, is out of the question. And yes, I had the opportunity for this. And no, I didn't take it. I speak from experience here, not my ideal view of how I'd react.

The strange thing is that a lot of people I know don't seem to share these views. Or they share them in their words, but not their actions. And the ones that do share them, both in their words and their actions, are either single or male - neither of which appeals to me. This really sucks when you're single and trying to find a girlfriend.

And the weird part is that I'm not religious at all. I'm agnostic, so I don't have to play by the rules in the bible, and in many cases I don't play by them. So where'd these morals come from? Beats me. I don't even know if morals is the right word for this, but it'll do.

Alcohol is no excuse. I've gone to a bar, had much to drink (15 oz of 40% rye over about 4 hours), but never gotten myself into a situation like that. The worst thing I've done under the influence of alcohol was sing karaoke - and that wasn't entirely a bad thing! ;-) Sure, I could barely walk, but I could still think clearly enough to stay out of trouble and call a cab to get home.

Anyways, the point of this is that I don't understand how this stuff can happen. Alcohol or not, when you have morals as ingrained as mine are, its impossible to violate them.

I'm not trying to take a Holier-than-thou stand here, although it'll probably come off like that no matter what, I'm just trying to say that I would have reacted differently in this situation.

I would have slept on the couch (at the very least) or called and paid for a cab for the two girls.
-- Dave
[ Parent ]
Argh (2.00 / 1) (#144)
by djkimmel on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 01:43:28 AM EST

"Single or male" should read "non-single or male" in the third paragraph

*smacks himself for posting when overly tired*
-- Dave
[ Parent ]
You don't have to be religious to do what works (4.00 / 1) (#213)
by pw201 on Fri Dec 22, 2000 at 08:17:17 PM EST

And the weird part is that I'm not religious at all. I'm agnostic, so I don't have to play by the rules in the bible, and in many cases I don't play by them. So where'd these morals come from? Beats me. I don't even know if morals is the right word for this, but it'll do.

I think you're doing what works best in the long term after you've thought about it. I suppose that your view is similar to that of some religious people because they also tend to take a longer view. I'm not talking about the "be good or you'll go to hell" view here (which I don't think is what my particular religion is about, anyway), but rather the idea that the here and now isn't the most important thing.

So, I think that even if I wasn't a Christian, I'd probably have similar attitudes to sex as I do now because I think that'd benefit me most in the long term, and also benefit the society I'm in (read any Neal Stephenson book: the idea of rules like this making a good society is one of his pet themes, particularly in The Diamond Age but also in Cryptonomicon to some extent).

To do the opposite is to take a more short term view: pleasure now is the most important thing.

Anyways, the point of this is that I don't understand how this stuff can happen. Alcohol or not, when you have morals as ingrained as mine are, its impossible to violate them.

Why, then, the answer is that other people don't have morals as ingrained as you do (so you're lucky/blessed (delete as appropriate)), or that the morals they do have are different. Even if you have the sort of morality you do, morals are hard to hang onto when you're drunk (which is why some religions are so down on getting drunk: it's not because enjoying yourself is bad) and if you add to that the immediate presence of something which you consider immoral but which you'll really enjoy, and you've got a recipe for disaster. The lesson is to be glad you're as strong as you are, I suppose, and to realise that not everyone is (not that I think that you are being holier than thou, because I don't, but in general it's easy to fall into looking down on people for giving in to temptations you are not subject to yourself).

[ Parent ]

Why the hang-ups? (5.00 / 1) (#174)
by cosmol on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 02:02:57 PM EST

The whole situation just conflicts with most peoples value systems. You talk about the idea of a the stereotypical predatory male, which I agree does exist, but as a role actually created by those very same "puritanical" systems. You're either a slut, a stag, or a good christian gentleman.

In our society a people have hang-ups about sexual realtionships. One is sexist notion that the male has to be the leader, the maker of decisions. Most people seem to blame farl for whatever moral(and therefore legal) transgression has occoured, but I think the blame should go both ways. I mean it was *mutual* gratification right? Obviously the female in this case didn't value the idea of complete abstinence before marriage enough to prevent herself from being carried away. This leads me to deduce that this person was not a virgin to begin with and by reason wouldn't be any more of "spoiled-goods" to her future husband.

Why do people have such hang-ups? What happened to the idea of free-love? Which should certainly be prevalent in San Francisco of all places. I'm trying to say that this is only a function of peoples belief systems. Who says that casual sex can't be secure and healthy? I guess it all depends on the mental security and the physical health of the parties involved. Abandon the hang-ups and this becomes a non-issue, which saves alot of hurt feelings.

But I realize that these hang-ups are too deeply rooted in most society to be abolished anytime soon

[ Parent ]

Re: What happened to the idea of free-love? (2.50 / 2) (#220)
by anlprb on Sat Dec 23, 2000 at 08:31:54 PM EST

One word-

And by the way, by being casual means that there is no real security or concern for the other person. From www.m-w.com. Please note definition 3.

Main Entry: 1ca·su·al
Pronunciation: 'kazh-w&l, 'ka-zh&-w&l, 'ka-zh&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French casuel, from Late Latin casualis, from Latin casus fall, chance -- more at CASE
Date: 14th century
1 : subject to, resulting from, or occurring by chance
2 a : occurring without regularity : OCCASIONAL b : employed for irregular periods
3 a : feeling or showing little concern : NONCHALANT b (1) : INFORMAL, NATURAL (2) : designed for informal use
- ca·su·al·ly adverb
- ca·su·al·ness noun

[ Parent ]
1 word (2.80 / 5) (#221)
by farl on Sat Dec 23, 2000 at 08:41:04 PM EST

Not to be nitpicky... but isn't AIDS four words?

And yes, that is why you use protection...

[ Parent ]
Re: 1 word (3.66 / 3) (#223)
by anlprb on Sat Dec 23, 2000 at 08:59:11 PM EST


Only problem with protection is using it, and being impaired by any drug (alcohol included, because it is one of the last legal drugs please note definition 3

Main Entry: 1drug
Pronunciation: 'dr&g
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English drogge
Date: 14th century
1 a obsolete : a substance used in dyeing or chemical operations b : a substance used as a medication or in the preparation of medication c according to the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (1) : a substance recognized in an official pharmacopoeia or formulary (2) : a substance intended for use in the diagnosis, cure, mitigation, treatment, or prevention of disease (3) : a substance other than food intended to affect the structure or function of the body (4) : a substance intended for use as a component of a medicine but not a device or a component, part, or accessory of a device
2 : a commodity that is not salable or for which there is no demand -- used in the phrase drug on the market
3 : something and often an illegal substance that causes addiction, habituation, or a marked change in consciousness
- drug·gy also drug·gie /'dr&-gE/ adjective


does not allow for a "clear-headed" approach to anything. And besides, prophylactics are only about 80% effective. I do not know about you, but Murphy was an optimist, and I know with my luck, I will be in that 20th percentile. But hey, Russian Roulette is legal too, until it becomes suicide.

[ Parent ]
1 expansion... (3.00 / 3) (#224)
by Miniluv on Sat Dec 23, 2000 at 09:17:47 PM EST

Does anlprb really expand to anal probe? Cuz if so, you rock man. Anal probing is awesome.

"Its like someone opened my mouth and stuck a fistful of herbs in it." - Tamio Kageyama, Iron Chef 'Battle Eggplant'
[ Parent ]
Re: 1expansion... (5.00 / 3) (#226)
by anlprb on Sat Dec 23, 2000 at 11:38:31 PM EST

Yes it does, but the reason it does is for the irony that it conveys, considering who I am. I tend to be a very straight-laced person, who would not consider something like that. But hey, given the right person, why not???
HEH, Purely intended as a joke. I also have the sticker that says "I am the person your mother warned you about." again, for the irony factor. And I am the kind of person that you take home to mother. Mothers love me. I was once offered twins by one. True story. I rear-ended this woman (in a car, for all you dirty minded people out there), who happened to work at my university, and when I dropped off the check to cover the damages, she tried to hard-sell me on how wonderful her daughters were. Kind of wierd. There are two kind of people in this world, those you date, and those you marry, unfortunately, I usually fall into the latter category, so many people do not consider me in the context of someone to date. (If this does not make much sense, I am fairly drunk as of this writing, so, please forgive my ramblings. I had to preview this 6 times before I caught most of the errors. :-P)

[ Parent ]
a dog barks (2.50 / 2) (#265)
by anonymous cowerd on Wed Jan 03, 2001 at 08:10:21 PM EST

You presume to abuse me with: ...With respect to marriage... I see it as a sanctuary. A place where you have finally pledged that this is the person who you can trust totally, and completely. This gives you the complete comfort and security that is necessary to make a sexual relationship healthy...

Listen here you son of a bitch I can tolerate a troll with decent good humor, but with these words, here and now you have gone far, far too far. I've been married approximately forever, and each of my old dear friends who have not died prematurely of overdoses are also endlessly married, with many children too, and to hear the words "comfort" and "security" and "sanctuary" and "trust" in the same sentence with the word "marriage," that sentence lacking the logically necessary negative modifier such as "no" "not" or "never," such a tongue lashing is so hideously intolerable to the tattered fragments of my sense of reality that here, now, I rear up upon my hind legs and howl like a dog.

Sir, damn you, Sir, Marriage is War.

Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

"This calm way of flying will suit Japan well," said Zeppelin's granddaughter, Elisabeth Veil.
[ Parent ]

Re: a dog barks (none / 0) (#266)
by anlprb on Sat Jan 13, 2001 at 12:14:22 AM EST

Please note that I said I see it as a sanctuary. This does not necessarily reflect everyone's viewpoint. And, if you would like to call me names, please notice that what I said was my OWN opinion, and by pointedly attacking me, you are showing yourself to be more of a troll than you purport me to be. To point out to you, since you did not notice, I tried to be very polite with the way I worded my comment. I did not speak to anyone directly, but always referred to the subject in the third person, hence talking to the rest of the readers, and not to the poster. This was meant as a comment to all reading, and not as a person attack on farl. I tried to be polite, but unfortunately, you could not have shown the same decorum.

[ Parent ]
Consent (2.22 / 9) (#141)
by supine on Wed Dec 20, 2000 at 11:23:25 PM EST

I have read this somewhere before:

silence != consent

Dude, you stuffed up.

"No GUI for you! Use lynx!!!, Come back, One year!" -- /avant
Hey, it might not be all bad... (2.28 / 7) (#152)
by lucas on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 07:39:37 AM EST

You seem like an intelligent person and, having said that, you should know what happens when drugs, beer, ho's, and ulterior motives mix.

Hey, if the Springer show calls, I can pretend to be the angry fiance who just found out and we can do a choreographed fake ass-whooping.

Ho's? (2.00 / 4) (#159)
by jabber on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 10:29:56 AM EST

Ho's? Hence rating.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

Come on, have a sense of humor... (2.50 / 2) (#166)
by lucas on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 11:34:02 AM EST

> Ho's? Hence rating.

Oh, give me a break, I was talking about the unsavory nature of the story and how it sounds like the scenario on a Springer-type show. Maybe I should have subsituted beer for "40's" or 8-ball and drugs for "Chronic" to get the point across. Ouch, my mojo! (ah, just kidding) I'll just have to retaliate, in good faith, of course... ;-)

[ Parent ]
Cuts both ways (4.07 / 14) (#161)
by jabber on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 10:54:39 AM EST

A lot of people here are saying that Farl is a f*ck-up, that he's done wrong and that he's an idiot. Maybe..

But what seems to get lost in the discussion is that he was just as screwed up by the drinking and drugs as the girl. Was he thinking straight? Would he have done anything with her if he had been clean and sober that night? I don't think so.

Was his behavior tinted by her 'come on' and flirting earlier in the night? Most likely. Did the chemicals in his brain reduce his ability to make a sound judgement? Most likely. If, in his state of mind, he had the presence of mind to check for consent, and was not told to STOP, then what did he do wrong, really?

Chivalry was raised as an argument. It's a good guide, but Farl was turned on, and not discouraged - in fact, I'd say that he was subtly led on during the preceeding evening.

Unless the girl was significantly more impaired than Farl, all she is doing is voicing regret and guilt over having betrayed her fiancee's trust. She let it go too far, and reality didn't catch up until afterwards. Drinks, drugs, they are irrelevant if both parties were lucid enough to acknowledge consent, really. We've all done stupid things with other people, under the influence of hormones alone - the 'heat of the moment' is something people in relationships tend to regret getting lost in. She was facing Farl, she got Farl off! Maybe she was altered, but she was not passed out - in fact, she was willful and deliberate.

Of course that doesn't change the significance of the word "RAPE". Rape is a very nasty stigma to wear, especially when you don't deserve it. Once the accusation is made, it is hard to un-make it. Once the word gets out, your reputation is shot - unless the girl admits accusing you in spite of facts. If there's doubt, you're guilty - unfortunate but true.

I would say that Farl should NOT talk to her about it. If it's regret driven, she'd rather forget than face up to it. If she faces up to it, her conscience will make her fess up to her fiancee, and that will be a mess. If she can write it off as an incident that she resents, but can hide, it's likely to be better for all concerned - but if she presses charges, Farl should be well prepared to defend himself (and suffer whatever consequences arise - better to be fined justly for drug possession than jailed wrongly for rape). If she sets her mind to this all being Farl's fault, and she hates and avoids him, but doesn't claim rape, then she, Farl and all others will be better off. Farl, take 'responsibility' for coping a feel, knowing that she's blaming you because her resolve slipped, not because you assulted her.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"

Good point (none / 0) (#187)
by dennis on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 05:55:00 PM EST

It seems to me that the same standard to apply to both parties. Assume they are both equally trashed. If he is to be considered responsible for his actions, so should she--so it's not rape, she consented. If she is not to be held responsible for her actions, neither should he. (However, I don't know anything about the actual law, and it probably varies by state.)

[ Parent ]
To hell with the drugs (none / 0) (#252)
by xdroop on Wed Dec 27, 2000 at 03:45:27 PM EST

Claiming that the drugs and/or alcohol is somehow a mitigating factor which removes the legal ability of someone to say (or, on the other hand, understand and respond to) no is one of the reasons why the legal system is getting no respect these days.

And yet people want to keep drugs and alcohol as a part of society?...

...ah, maybe I'm just some sort of prudish throwback.
xhost +
[ Parent ]

Why I do not do drugs. (3.86 / 15) (#165)
by jabber on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 11:30:02 AM EST

While I was in High School, a male friend and a female friend, were at my place - just hanging out and spending time. A joint appeared and we shared it.

While under the influence, I found it very difficult to 'do the right thing'. My male friend was talking in my ear about how easy it would be to take advantage of the girl - actually, what he was saying was that she was asking for it - but in retrospect he was looking for a back-up. She was flirty and touchy-feely, but before hand, she had asked me to not let anything happen.

I wanted something to happen. The pot was making it very difficult to keep my promise. It was an exhausing and frightenning experience, to stay lucid despite the drug and booze - to 'manage' that situation - where what she wanted at the moment was at odds with what she really wanted - where what I wanted was at odds to what I had promised to do - and where what he wanted was the same as what I wanted, and the same as what she wanted at that time.

Nothing happened - but subsequently my friendship with the guy has drastically cooled, and we only see each other every few years; my friendship with the girl just disolved; and I've not done drugs since.

I've ended a 4 year long relationship with a girl I intended to marry, due to her unwillingness to swear off pot while she was off at College. I've thrown my best friend out of my house, and didn't speak with him for 8 months, bacause he got stoned in my driveway. They both knew in advance how I felt.

I know how drugs affected my ability to reason. I remember how big a struggle it was. I completely avoid that complexity in my life now. And if my current gf/fiancee decided that drugs and parties was something she wanted to get into, I would regretfully, but immediatelly, end the relationship. I do not spend time with people who do drugs, and I do not get emotionally or physically close to women who are not lucid - dealing with fully functional flirts is difficult enough.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"

Fair enough for you, but... (3.55 / 9) (#167)
by spiralx on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 11:47:08 AM EST

Okay, so you had a bad experiance on pot where you thought you might lose control and end up doing something you knew was wrong. But you didn't. At the end of the day, your situation was a lot less grey than farl's was, and you knew she didn't want anything to happen, and despite the inhibition-lowering effects that alcohol and pot can have you did the right thing.

OTOH your mate at that time sounds like a bit of a bastard, and him saying something like that is not because of the "demon weed" it's because that's the sort of person he is.

It also sounds like you were pretty out of it. Smoking dope after a heavy drinking session is not advisable at all for someone unused to the effects because it really can spin you out. It's a hell of a lot different in its effects than having a quick toke when you're sober.

But fair enough, you don't like the way smoking dope made you feel. That's cool, I personally don't either, it makes me sick and I vary rarely smoke it. But you seem to have come out of this with the view that if you smoke marijuana it means that you won't be able to control yourself; basically, that what happened to you will happen to everyone every time they smoke. This is pretty damn unreasonable, and it seems to show that you have a pretty dim view of the people you associate with.

I've ended a 4 year long relationship with a girl I intended to marry, due to her unwillingness to swear off pot while she was off at College. I've thrown my best friend out of my house, and didn't speak with him for 8 months, bacause he got stoned in my driveway.

When you say she was smoking, how often do you mean? How much do you mean? Was she just having the odd joint here and there on a semi-regular basis? Getting caned every night to oblivion? If the latter, sure then I can see how you wouldn't be compatible given your views, but to have dumped her because she had the odd joint without losing the plot seems extremely harsh.

And you threw your friend out of the house just for getting stoned once? Have you ever thrown him out of the house for getting drunk? Because after all in the vast majority of cases, alcohol is far worse than dope for making people lose their inhibitions and do things they normally wouldn't.

I do not spend time with people who do drugs, and I do not get emotionally or physically close to women who are not lucid - dealing with fully functional flirts is difficult enough.

Again the inference that doing drugs makes you some kind of zombie who has trouble thinking. This is exactly the kind of crap peddled by programs like DARE in the US, and hardly the sort of views I'd expect a reasonable person to have. Sure, drugs can fuck you up, but it takes a fair amount of effort to acheive that state for most people, especially with a drug like marijuana.

I've managed to sort my life out, hold down a job and enjoy myself whilst caning through a fair old amount of chemicals over the last few years. The only times I've really lost control have been when I've been drinking, which is why I try and avoid that as much as I can. I think you're being unfair to project your negative experiances onto every situation you encounter.

You're doomed, I'm doomed, we're all doomed for ice cream. - Bob Aboey
[ Parent ]

Response to some points. (3.75 / 4) (#173)
by jabber on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 01:05:13 PM EST

Yes, I did manage to keep the situation clear after the fact, but the struggle that it took was a lot more than I would choose to face again - so I resolved to avoid the issue from then on. Some drinking combined with the pot (which may have been laced, I don't know), along with my not being well used to it, did probably make that one situation more difficult than others would have been afterwards - but I must have gotten an aversion to the whole 'out of control' feeling of drugs - they hold no appeal to me.

Yes, the guy I was friends with is a creep. In most situations, he's pretty human - but he does have a wide self-serving, opportunistic streak. I think that the use of drugs made that part of his nature more pronounced, or harder for him to control. This 'difficulty' with controlling impulses seems to be key to my avoidance of drugs, and to Farl's entire dilemma.

I do have 'trust issues'. I know that I can be very stubborn, and I know how much stubbornness it took for me to not give into 'impulses'. My lack of trust of others, coupled with my personal experience with pot, makes it even harder for me to trust others when they use drugs. Is this really 'dim'? Is it a fair parallel to draw, to say that if you've been attacked by dogs as a child, you'll likely not go near them again? You'll likely not be friends with dog owners or 'dog people' either...

I do not presume to make other people change their behaviour - I just ask that if they are in a relationship with me, they respect my views and quirks. If the issue is forced, they can choose to accomodate my narrow-mindedness or increase the distance in the relationship.

As for the ex-fiancee: Her use was recreational, and she liked to put herself into situations like the one that I struggled through, for kicks. College offered her an opportunity to be a flirt and to party, and this 'enjoyment' coupled with my experience and 'issues', set off alarms all over the place. Ultimatelly, the argument degraded into butting heads, and the importance of the relationship from her perspective was much lesser than from mine. Too bad - lesson learned. The drug use was the fuse, not the sole reason. The reason was the lack of compromise on both sides.

As for the friend: I have no problem with him getting stoned - it's his business. The nature of the relationship is much different than with a GF/partner, so there's less 'right' to impose will based on mutual respect. He gets stoned at his place, and I choose not to be there. But, knowing how I feel, he came over for an evening, went in the driveway, smoked, and came back in. I asked him to leave. I feel I was completely within my rights, and so does he, now. We agree that drugs and I do not mix, so I do not get invited to parties where drugs are used, and drugs are not used when I am around. In fact, he's accomodating enough to tell me if and when the atmosphere will change (people coming and going etc) and so I can remove myself from a situation before I get uncomfortable. He's a very good friend.

Yes, I am closed-minded about drug use. The logic is half-complete at best, but reasoning it all out doesn't change how I feel about the issue. I often end an argument by raising the 'illegality' point, but that's a cop-out. If drugs were legal, I would still feel the same way, and I would still act the same way. Some people have a strong aversion to alcohol, and manage to live their little closed-minded lives with a Liquor Store just down the street. They walk uncomfortably through the super-market's beer isle looking for Club Soda.

If I reason through the drug isse, removing myself from the logic, then I conclude that drugs ought to be legal. The "war on drugs" is a waste of time, effort and money, and does more harm than good - I do not know the situation outside of the US, but jailing people for carrying marijuana and paroling violent criminals seems to be the wrong way to deal with the problem. Pot seems less harmful than booze - except in my personal experience, which I recognize as vbeing very limitedd and subjective.

Is the dog parallel fair? That's how I tend to view it. I fear the drug-dog, and I cross the street when I see one coming. Is it really unfair to let my past experience tint my perspective? It's exactly what you're doing by mentioning that, in your experience, alcohol is the substance which cost you control. Alcohol has limited my ability to act in an absolute sense - to walk, drive, hold down food... Pot has (nearly) cost me the ability to think and act in accordance with my beliefs and 'better judgement'; and that bothers me more than puking on my shoes.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

Okay (3.00 / 2) (#177)
by spiralx on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 02:14:57 PM EST

Unfortunately I don't really have the time right now to go through and reply to the points you made in your post seeing as I'm not at work now ;)

But this reply does make some things a little clearer than your original post did, and I can see where you're coming from even though I don't really agree with it. But then again, I'm not you and I haven't really been in the same situation as you.

But there is one thing...

Is it really unfair to let my past experience tint my perspective? It's exactly what you're doing by mentioning that, in your experience, alcohol is the substance which cost you control.

No, it's not. Sure alcohol has been the thing that has caused me the most grief, but I make the difference between saying it's bad in principle and saying I've had bad experiances on it. Even though I've done it to excess in the past, I don't consider it to automatically be a bad thing...

Hence the fact that a) I still drink and b) I don't judge others that drink.

Did that make any sense? Sorry, I'm being distracted by the phone, my housemate and IRC :)

You're doomed, I'm doomed, we're all doomed for ice cream. - Bob Aboey
[ Parent ]

Did I do that? (3.00 / 2) (#178)
by jabber on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 02:32:43 PM EST

I didn't think I had made any judgement of the people that do drugs - only of the effect of drugs, based on my own experience. Most of my friends either use, or have used, and they're still my friends - with no difference other than my avoiding drugs, not people.

On that note, it's probably time to start the long weekend. Cheers!

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

Livin' in the past. (none / 0) (#210)
by cosmol on Fri Dec 22, 2000 at 02:44:20 PM EST

Very good reply

Yeah I think the dog parallel is a fair one, but why be stigmatized by what has happened in the past? The person who is afraid of dogs misses out on the fun of playing fetch with one, for no reason other than their stubborness.

I've felt horrible, and done some very idiotic things while under the influence of alcohol, but it doesn't bother me when people drink alcohol around me. I'll just be smoking my joint and laughing at them in the morning when they have a pounding headache, along with their left eyebrow shaved off and a lawn gnome of unknown origin in the bed beside them. Don't get me wrong, I still drink but man I hate that hangover, and the likelyhood of doing something dumb and spending the night in jail is much higher IMO on alcohol rather than weed. I've never decided to go steal road-signs or get rowdy while I'm stoned, drunk is another matter. The stoner is a peaceful person, the drunk is a boisterous animal.

I challenge you to try smoking some pot without being on the influence of a depressant like alcohol. But realize that what the mind thinks about something, It will prove. So smoking more pot might just be a self-fulfilling prophecy for you.

I guess you should just chill about the whole pot issue, you don't have to smoke, but you don't have to avoid your firends that do, and even turn smoking into a reason not to be friends with them anymore. My brother is this way, he doesn't smoke, but is totally neutral on the issue. I think he realizes that a bunch of stoners aren't really anything to be afraid of. Hell, I bet he thinks it's amusing to watch us carry on giggling and such. I thought the aversion to marijuana came from your own experience, why project that onto other people? I think you'll find that stoned people are fun to hang out with :)

[ Parent ]

Leaving isn't necessarily the best idea... (3.40 / 5) (#168)
by lucas on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 11:57:50 AM EST

>And if my current gf/fiancee decided that drugs and parties was
>something she wanted to get into, I would regretfully, but immediatelly,
> end the relationship.

I don't disagree with much of what you said... I did a few drugs very lightly during my college years and discovered that it made me feel *really* terrible (I might be slightly allergic to some things, I'm not sure). I had friends who were drug dealers, but I never hung out with them except for in class because I didn't want the pressure of using with them. When drugs are available and everywhere, you have to consciously set yourself apart. So, yeah, I agree.

This comment about your fiancee struck me because it might show a lack of trust. If she respects your opinions, she will stay clear of drugs and understand your opinions of them. However, if you respect her, you won't "immediately end the relationship", but seek to promote drug-free living and set an example. By advocating a proactive and positive attitude about life and not an irresponsible ("I'm just gonna walk") attitude, I think you will find more success since people use drugs often to escape. When you make ultimatums and threats part of a relationship, you will probably find yourself in a tight spot eventually.

[ Parent ]
Done that. (3.00 / 2) (#170)
by jabber on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 12:22:05 PM EST

I agree with what you say. I didn't give enough detail in my initial post.

Early in our relationship, she and I had a pretty big argument about recreational drug use. She didn't know how I felt, and I made a point to explain my views - and the reasons for them. At that point, she agreed to respect my views, and I agreed to trust her to do so. Over the few years that followed, it has never been an issue. She does not have a 'bad experience' with drugs and is not as absolute in her judgement of them, but she respects my views to the point of avoiding the argument. She does not do drugs.

My point was that, IF that should change, she and I are both keenly aware of how unresolvable the situation would become. Initially, I didn't present it as an ultimatum or a threat - she was not aware of my beliefs and it would have been unfair to force her to agree. I pleaded my case, explained my reasons, and we came to an agreement.

Interestingly enough, just last night, she and I had an argument that will end up being an ultimatum in the reverse bias. I'd better stick that in a diary though - suffice it to say, she's a firm believer in the power of AA (having relatives and friends who were helped by it) while I tend to view AA as a means/crutch/framework, not some sort of silver bullet for addicts. :) The difference of opinion brought her to tears, so I'll know better than to broach the subject ever again - we differ and need to respect such tender spots.

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

Interesting ... (2.57 / 7) (#185)
by misterluke on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 05:27:32 PM EST

You singled out the pot as the single worst influence on the entire situation. I'd be interested to know whether you swore off booze just as vehemently. I'd be interested to know how long you'd have stayed friends with that guy even without ever having touched that joint. I'd be interested to know how many people say "He was all red-eyed and covered in Doritos when he did it" vs. "He reeked of whiskey". I'd be interested to know if you are, in fact, trolling. I'd be interested to know how reasonable you appeared to your best friend when you kicked him out of your life for 8 months for something he considers minor. I'd be interested to know why you didn't kick your wannabe rapist friend out of your life with the same force back then.

I think you need to find a secluded room, a Black Sabbath album, a nice reefer, and enough free time to experience it in a paranoia free manner. Consider it a scientific experiment. Even if you decide afterwards to leave the shit alone forever again, and ostracise anyone who doesn't, you'll at least be basing your conclusion on a sample of size > 1.


[ Parent ]
Wonder no more (3.50 / 2) (#211)
by jabber on Fri Dec 22, 2000 at 02:54:48 PM EST

I did not swear off booze, as I've been in similar contexts with only booze involved, and the situation was null. In this case, the pot was the only 'other', and so got the blame.

Can't say how long we would have stayed friends - but my opinion of his character would not have changed so drastically.

I've never seen a violent pot-head. I've heard of a few getting into car accidents, but these were certainly less frequent than the drunks that do so.

Trolling? No - it doesn't amuse me.

How reasonable? Can't say. He was well informed of my attitude and the reasons for it. He had previously agreed to respect my views while in my home. I'm sure he was offended and resentful at the time, but we've since had cleared the issue.

Why I didn't kick the 'wanna-be rapist friend' out? Because my understanding of the situation at that moment was not adequate. I didn't know how I felt about it or why. I was also under the influence at the time, and needed to figure things out. Suffice it to say that, while I was in no state to 'kick him out' at that moment, he didn't come around much afterwards.

Scientific experiment? Why? Just to 'be fair' to marijuana? Not interested. Just as, for personal reasons, I have no interest in homosexual sex, tattoos or piercings, or frequenting strip clubs, I simply have no interest in giving drugs a 'fair shake', or making them a part of my lifestyle. If you think that drugs are ok for you, fine. I'm not trying to change your mind, am I? All I ask is that, out of respect for me, you do not do drugs at my place - that's all. If you invite me over, and spark up a bone while I'm in your living room, don't consider it a personal judgement if I excuse myself and leave. I'll still respect you as a person, I simply do not want to be around drugs, that's all. Why does that offend you?

[TINK5C] |"Is K5 my kapusta intellectual teddy bear?"| "Yes"
[ Parent ]

Thanks, and sorry. (2.50 / 2) (#212)
by misterluke on Fri Dec 22, 2000 at 05:34:17 PM EST

I posted that last one before reading your responses to the other comments, and I regret taking that confrontational stand. One of my touchy spots is about drugs getting used as an excuse for inappropriate behaviour. I thought you were doing that, you weren't ( at least not in any unreasonable way ) and I'm sorry I didn't take a minute before posting. Maybe I should take my own advice and find a nice secluded room for a while ...


[ Parent ]
Sad, farl, very sad, and take some responsibility (3.69 / 13) (#171)
by Ricdude on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 12:46:55 PM EST

As best I can guess, you've successfully managed to take advantage of a (by your account, "knockout") woman under, at best, a questionable level of consent, due to the excess substances floating around your collective bloodstreams. You might be interested to find out that in California, if someone is in an altered state of mind, consent *cannot* be given. In the back of your mind is the concern that maybe you did indeed take advantages of the woman, who, at her most sober moment of the evening said, "...so I cant fuck you." This bothers you, yet you seek some sense of validation for having committed the act anyway, in spite of several protests during the course of the evening So you post your rant here, including several irrelevant details bragging just how much of a *stud* you are, hoping some *guys* will cosign your bullshit. Sorry, you get no sympathy from me. That nagging feeling in the back of your mind is your guilty conscience. Pay some attention to it. It has something to tell you. Consider an apology merely an adequate starting place.

California law (4.50 / 6) (#199)
by davidduncanscott on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 10:41:36 PM EST

So, does California law also hold a drunk blameless for other decisions she might make? Had she, for instance, consented to drive herself home and killed somebody on the way, would she have been cleared?

The way I was raised, "I was drunk at the time" was never an excuse for men or women. If she's old enough to be engaged, then she's old enough either to know her limits, drink at home, or yes, "take some responsibility".

[ Parent ]

Culture (none / 0) (#260)
by Robert Gormley on Sat Dec 30, 2000 at 01:16:22 PM EST

... it seems, leaves some with a very picky sense of when something is right or wrong. And usually never logical.

[ Parent ]
Responsibility... (4.00 / 2) (#227)
by djpotter on Sun Dec 24, 2000 at 12:39:41 AM EST

However - and I'm making an assumption that Farl's story is true - couldn't this also be turned around? This woman is getting married, she's out on the town with a friend or two - and bam! cute guy on the floor with another gal. She thinks, "after I'm married, I can't just dance/flirt/whatever with any guy I like." So...she 'teases' Farl a bit. "You're hot, <snip>...so I can't fuck you." The implied bit here being "...but I sure would like to."

Then they crash at a place - all in the bed, with Farl next to this gal. My question: If Janet didn't want *something* to happen, why would she choose to sleep in a bed with a guy who obviously finds her desirable, and she admits that she finds Farl sexually desirable?

I'm not defending Farl as much as saying look at it from another standpoint. You're advocating "take responsibility", yet Janet could have taken responsibility by a.) ceasing drinking, b.) sleep on the floor/couch c.) tell Farl "no" at any point - and I think he would have stopped.

I agree with others that Farl was used here, and Janet is afraid that Farl and the other 2 have 'stuff' on her to use after she's married.

Farl, perhaps this wasn't an "ideal" situation, but...I don't think you're a rapist, either.


"Anyone remotely interesting is somehow mad." - Dr. Who
[ Parent ]
Agreed (none / 0) (#261)
by Robert Gormley on Sat Dec 30, 2000 at 01:18:08 PM EST

I mean thought there is a difference, and it's not always the case, I rarely have pity for the women who try to pull the "Oh gosh! I didn't think if I told him I wanted to fuck him, went back to his place, got naked in bed with him, he'd try to fuck me! Oh gosh no!" 'reasoning'...

[ Parent ]
"consent" vs. "informed consent&quo (3.80 / 5) (#172)
by mattw on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 12:57:28 PM EST

The key mistake that's been made here is that there is a difference between consent (the act of merely agreeing), and informed consent (the act of agreeing while in possession of what society regards as your full faculties).

When someone is drunk, and moreso when very drunk, they lose the ability to provide informed consent. Had you both been completely sober, and the next day she decided it was something she never wanted, it would have been merely her mistake.

The concept of informed consent crops up in several other places, both sexual and not. An obvious one, sexual in nature, is the idea of statutory rape. Society deems that below a certain age level, you cannot provide an informed consent -- and so statutory rape is consent, without informed consent, to a sexual act. You also have informed consent regarding the recent story on Euthanasia right here on k5. The dutch recognized that a mere 'yes' is insufficient to evaluate consent or desire for assisted suicide. It requires a complete evaluation so that we can be certain that not only has a person made the choice, but they recognize all the consequences of their actions, as well as other options, so that their choice is not made from psychological distress, ignorance, etc. The same legal principle even shows up in other areas: contracts are overturned because they are not backed by enough information for a party of the contract to know what they were 'getting into' (leading, in many cases, to government-mandated disclosures during things like insurance settlements).

Fundamentally, all the other circumstances of your situation are mere accoutrements to your base situation: you performed an act which requires informed consent, when all you had was consent. Gender, parties, beauty, or the factor inhibiting the ability to give informed consent (alcohol), are not relevent to the concept.

However, it is another thing entirely to consider whether this is rape, in the legal sense. As far as I'm concerned, you both bear equal responsibility for your actions. Had you both been at a bar, been smashed, and gone home together, and only learned the next day she had a fiancee, then what? In other words, legally, your knowledge of her does not create special requirements for you. Morally, I'd regard your actions as a bit more damning, since you were the initiator, but only marginally so. Obviously, the situation is even more sticky once we regard the instance in which you are completely sober in the same set of circumstances.

The moral of the story, however, is don't mix up consent and informed consent -- legally and morally, they are different, and one without the other is dangerous.

[Scrapbooking Supplies]
flip side (4.00 / 3) (#191)
by _peter on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 06:37:58 PM EST

Consent vs. Qualified Consent is important, but it's only fair to consider the other side: was he in full control of his own faculties?

If you don't take both sides into account, you get ridiculous things like a bylaw at a college I once attended which called a rapist a man who had contact with a woman who was under any influence at all -- regardless of the man's state. She could be tipsy, and take advantage of a passed-out drunk, yet she would be considered the victim.

That I find morally repugnant, all questions of legality aside. Unfortunately, it's not the only instance of double standards in the legal system.

[ Parent ]

Farl was the initiator? (none / 0) (#254)
by tankgirl on Thu Dec 28, 2000 at 05:58:49 PM EST

Morally, I'd regard your actions as a bit more damning, since you were the initiator, but only marginally so. Obviously, the situation is even more sticky once we regard the instance in which you are completely sober in the same set of circumstances.

I agree with all of your reasoning and found this to be an insightful comment, but I also noted that you felt the need to brand Farl as the initiator. This gave me some insight into your own morals and colored your comment as favoring Janet.

I'm sure you didn't mean for it to sneak in, based on your statement of 'equal responsibility' earlier in the paragraph, but IMHO, this is the sort of 'slip' that leads us to obtuse laws allowing women to shirk personal responsibility (I am a woman BTW, since this statement will probably get me flamed).

I believe Janet was the initiator with her little 'non-offer', not necessarily in a legal sense but morally. (I realize that we're looking at this from Farl's probably biased account of the conversation, BTW.) She understood what the statement meant when she made it. It was a pass, a half-assed one that probably should've given Farl his first clue that she didn't believe in practicing personal resonsibility, but a pass none the less. She solicited his interest while unable to give informed consent, but to beat a dead horse- his condition was equal to hers. Up to that point in the evening, Farl appears to have considered her an off limits 'hottie'.

This makes neither of them correct, but I find it interesting that many of the comments claiming to not to take sides have just a little bit of spin in them favoring Janet.

"I'm afraid of Americans. I'm afraid of the world. I'm afraid I can't help it." -David Bowie
[ Parent ]
more like playing possum (2.60 / 5) (#176)
by cosmol on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 02:06:21 PM EST

My friend has remained asleep for the whole thing, so she knew nothing about anything that had happened

Heh, yeah right, you know she was just pretending :)

Mutual Rape and Bad Definitions (4.28 / 7) (#180)
by emptyshell on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 02:53:08 PM EST

This depends on where you live, but what happened could very well be rape under the law. In Massachussets I believe the law says that any person intoxicated cannot legally have consented, even if they did consent. So you raped her. However, the law also reads in a non-gender specific way. So... she also raped you.

The way this law reads has prompted a lot of discussion between some of my friends who are members of a rape and sexual assault prevention group. Despite their outstanding efforts to help prvent rape, most of them have expressed worry about this.

It seems fairly intrusive for the government to say it is not legal for two people to have sex if they both agree. You and your spouse go out for a nice dinner and have a few too many glasses of wine. You get a taxi, head home, and have sex. You are a rapist under law.

So farl, I'd say that you and Janet made some mistakes. And the situation is complicated because neither of you verbally consented (even under the influence, it would have been better than nothing). But the key in my mind is that everything that happened, happened with freewill. And if each of you choose differently then you might have when sober, well both of you made the decision to drink. So, farl, the law may say that both you and Janet are rapists, and you both certainly made mistakes, but from what you have said, I do not believe either of you are rapists.


Please, if I have been mislead about Massachussets state law, correct me. I have never read the laws in question myself.

you were set up (2.63 / 11) (#181)
by dzimmerm on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 02:56:14 PM EST

Lets get some of the facts straight.

You did not know this woman.

Your female friend did know this woman.

Your female friend never left the two of you alone.

This woman is getting married.

My guess would be that the woman wanted a safe fling before she committed herself to the bonds of matrimony. Your female friend setup you two up and chaparoned the whole affair to allow her friend her fling with very little chance of harm coming of it.

The rape comment was probably meant as a way of ensuring you had no emotional attachment because of the fun you two shared.

Get used to being used by woman if you do not wise up to the way some of them operate. Don't think of me as a woman hater because of what I have said. I have been married for 13 years and the reason I know about woman is my wife is willing to talk about some of their thought processes. It is second nature for the female of our race to use the male whenever she can. The only protection is having your own woman to watch out for you. Men can not think like woman and so we can not understand them well enought to deal with them in situations such as this.

As always, this is my opinion based on many years of life and love.


Ahem... (3.80 / 5) (#197)
by Forum on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 08:25:47 PM EST

Let me start this off with "Whatever, man." Do you really believe there is some sort of alien thinking process that makes women use men any more than there is one that makes men use women? If you do, then your "13 years of marriage" haven't taught you a damn thing. Women are people, just like you and I, and although there is ABSOLUTELY no way to tell at any given time exactly what they are thinking, the same goes for men. Men use and abuse women as often as women use men. You always hear about men being "pussy-whipped" and the like, but IMHO, that is a crock of horse-shit. If you aren't in enough control of yourself to differentiate when the correct time to initiate mating is or not, then you are someone I am VERY afraid for.

There is no female conspiracy, there is no universal female handbook on how to use men, and if you really think there is, you should seek psychological help. Personally, I can control my sex drive, and I pity the poor people I see every day who can't, because they are no better than animals, whose sole existance is to rut and create a brood. I really wish people would evolve beyond our desires to breed, and although I'm fairly certain that isn't going to happen any time in the near future, I believe mankind is the worse for it.

Sorry for the flame, but obviously, this is something I feel rather strongly about.


-- "When I walk down the street and only 3 or 4 shots are fired at me, I find it hard to stay awake." -HC
[ Parent ]
Forum (2.00 / 2) (#208)
by dzimmerm on Fri Dec 22, 2000 at 08:38:16 AM EST

If you read my comment you will see that I said "Some women". I do not feel that all women are out to get me anymore than all men are out to get me. Most people do not care one way or the other about me or anything I do. I like it that way.

I obviously stuck a nerve in your case but I did not mean my comments to be all inclusive. I meant, that in my opinion, in this case, that farl was setup by his female friend. I also said that men can not hope to understand women. I still think that is an accurate statement for most men, including myself.

As far as feeling sorry for me, go for it. Your feelings do not affect me one way or the other. Your words and thoughts expressed to me can be a learning experience and for that I thank you.


P.S. I rated your comment a 5 because I thought you expressed yourself very well.

[ Parent ]

I think alcohol needs a EULA (4.50 / 22) (#189)
by SIGFPE on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 06:20:55 PM EST


IMPORTANT-READ CAREFULLY: Be sure to read carefully all of the rights and restrictions described in this Alcohol End-User License Agreement ("EULA"). You will be expected to review and either accept or not accept the terms of the EULA. You should not partake of this beverage unless or until you accept the terms of this EULA.

Your breaking of the seal on this bottle is a symbol of your signature that you accept the terms of the EULA.

This EULA is a legal agreement between you and the Judiciary of XXX specifiying the terms to which you are bound by partaking of this beverage. By partaking of this beverage you are bound by the terms of this EULA. If you do not agree to the terms of this EULA you may not partake of this beverage.

By partaking of this beverage you accept that it is not the duty of any court in XXX to determine your true intentions during any giving of consent for the time period noted below. You accept that in the event of legal action subsequent to such consent it is the duty of the court to determine whether or not such consent was given without undue coercion but not to determine whether such consent is a symbol of the intention of consent on the part of the imbiber.

It has been determined that alcohol can impinge on one's ability to deny consent. You accept that it is not the duty of the court to determine whether or not you would have denied consent had you not partaken of this beverage. If during the period specified below subsequent to partaking of this beverage you believe it is possible that you may be required to give consent to an agreement but that prior to partaking of this beverage it is your intention not to give such consent then it is your responsibility to refuse to consent to this EULA and not to partake of this beverage. You must accept that by agreeing to this EULA you may consequently give consent to other agreements that the courts of XXX may find binding. If you are unable to accept those agreements as binding you should not consent to this EULA now. The courts of XXX have been instructed that the question of whether or not one is under the influence of alcohol at the time of giving assent to an agreement is not pertinent to the issue of whether that agreement is binding.

Heh. (4.00 / 2) (#216)
by kevsan on Sat Dec 23, 2000 at 03:19:48 AM EST

I thought it was rather funny that the variables were replaced with XXX in response to a sex story. *rimshot*

[ Parent ]
Something similar happened to a friend (4.33 / 12) (#190)
by Sheetrock on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 06:30:18 PM EST

One of my friends had a situation like this when he was just starting high school (this was several years ago). The boyfriend of a girl he had been hanging around got jealous and to placate him she accused my friend of rape. I don't even believe that my friend was interested in her in that way, but the stigma attached to that word made everyone reevaluate what they thought of him regardless of whether or not they thought he was guilty.

It didn't take long for her to admit what she had done, after the wheels were set in motion and the case was being investigated. She felt really bad about it, once she realized the gravity of the situation, and confessed the truth -- that she did this because she didn't want her boyfriend to leave her. Case closed, but I wonder to this day how much this hurt my friend mentally and whether or not everybody else who knows him trusts him as much as they did before the incident.

His experience taught me that you can't be too careful. An accusation is enough to ruin your life. Moral/legal or immoral/illegal just doesn't matter as much as public perception. If I was in a similar circumstance to yours, which seems less and less likely the longer I'm a computer programmer, I wouldn't have fooled around with Janet because she was in a seperate relationship and because she was inebriated. It'd be frustrating, to be sure, but it's the right thing to do. In fact, I probably would have avoided sleeping in the same bed just to avoid the perceived impropriety of the whole thing (though if I was drunk and stoned, I doubt I'd think big words like that... I'd just lie down on the floor.)

This wasn't rape, in my opinion. I don't think that either of you would have done what you did if the idea had never crossed each of your minds before unless there was something extra in the pot. I'll bet either of you could have put the brakes on if the circumstances mattered to you strongly enough. Neither of you did, and in the morning she's pissed at you for not controlling yourself and pissed at herself for not controlling herself. She probably has all sorts of thoughts going through her head ranging from damage control to questioning why she let herself do this when she's about to get married to someone she supposedly loves. So my guess is that when she said rape, she was really just trying to come to terms with what happened and not indicating that she's going to file charges. It sounds like she's feeling guilty about what she did; maybe it wouldn't be such a bad idea for you to tell her that you feel sorry that the whole thing happened and that you really don't want it to interfere with her relationship.

Brief, harsh, reality (3.50 / 6) (#193)
by Wah on Thu Dec 21, 2000 at 07:44:02 PM EST

Rape as a concept doesn't belong in this situation. The touching was even consentual and sex, as defined by me, is something that happens when you lose your virginity.

People get drunk, horny, and mess around. That's part of the fun of that side of culture. You exhibited some pretty standard male behaviour and (from what you have said, I'm sure her story is somewhat different) she did nothing to discourage it, and in fact invited it. (Sorry, but when a hottie tell me she wants to fuck me, anything else she says is a mere qualifier and doesn't change that basic fact)

I do have some experience in this area. Although in my situation it involved a married woman and later a divorce. But there, as perhaps is the case here, I was used as much as anyone else. You all get to decide what happens next, but now you have some interesting chaos to deal with.

If the situation gets legal, which sounds like a very remote possibility, then all bets are off and you'd best defend yourself. If not..well, life changes, take from the situation what you will and go on. It really doesn't sound like that big a deal, and would probably be better off as a juicy dairy entry than it is as a story to discuss.
Fail to Obey?

If anything... (none / 0) (#259)
by Robert Gormley on Sat Dec 30, 2000 at 01:11:03 PM EST

... it sounds much more like sexual harassment than rape (by Australian law anyway). And I don't think even that's accurate (the harassment bit).

[ Parent ]
Intoxication. (4.28 / 7) (#202)
by Mr. Excitement on Fri Dec 22, 2000 at 12:10:06 AM EST

There ought to be a distinction in all statutory rape laws between having something slipped into your drink, versus getting wasted of your own volition.

It sounds like she made the choices as to whether or not she got wasted, fully knowing that being intoxicated can make people do things they'll later regret.

On the other hand, so did you.

Still, if your story happened as you told it, I'm inclined to believe she's the one in the wrong, since a) you both seemed more coherent than sloshed, and b) she seems to be looking for a guilt-free "out" to rationalize her cheating on her fiancee.

So, you're both equally to blame (or to thank) for the fooling around, but she crossed the line by later deciding that it was all your fault. That's just morning-after revisionist history.

(All in all, a morbidly fascinating topic, +1, main page.)

1 141900 Mr. Excitement-Bar-Hum-Mal-Cha died in The Gnomish Mines on level 10 [max 12]. Killed by a bolt of lightning - [129]

Responsibility (4.14 / 7) (#203)
by Khedak on Fri Dec 22, 2000 at 01:04:49 AM EST

You both should have known better. Whether or not it's "rape" by a legal or any other standard is secondary. You knew she had a fiancee, you were messed up, she was messed up. You did take advantage of her, because she would not have allowed you to do what you did had she not been intoxicated. However, she allowed herself to get trashed, told you she wanted you sexually, and didn't say to stop when you asked whether she wanted to stop.

In summary, you both probably would not have done what you did if you hadn't been intoxicated. The difference is that afterwards she felt guilty because she cheated on her fiancee, but you have no guilt so you felt good about the experience. Whose fault was it? Both of you. Is it your responsibility to stop if she gets fucked up with you, gets into bed, and enjoys a sexual encounter with you? No more than it's her responsibility. She didn't tell you to stop, and the reason for that wasn't (as in cases of rape) that she felt coerced.

She didn't tell you to stop because she was enjoying herself, the same as you. She might be able to say that you seduced her (since the driving force behind the illicit encounter was your mutual sexual pleasure), but seduction is not rape. Her argument works on her too: She knew she had a fiancee, she knew she was drunk, and she didn't tell you to stop, even though you asked. She cheated, and you cheated with her, and you're both to blame.

Rape doesn't mean any sex that the female decides she should not have had, after she sobers up. You did what you did because you thought (correctly) it was what she wanted at the time. And she did what she did because she enjoyed it, despite her fiancee.

lopsided. (3.66 / 3) (#206)
by zencode on Fri Dec 22, 2000 at 07:25:49 AM EST

"You did take advantage of her, because she would not have allowed you to do what you did had she not been intoxicated."

how did you come to this conclusion? the possibility that she realized that she had fouled up and had some consequences to deal with, which then led to some monday-morning quarterbacking doesn't seem terribly far-fetched.

"taking advantage" of is getting a girl drunk with the intent of having her do things she wouldn't otherwise do. "taking advantage" might also be slipping some e into her drink.

"taking advantage" is about intent. and since neither of us can determine either of theirs, then i don't see your conclusions as being terribly insightful.

my .02

[ Parent ]

Commentary (4.00 / 3) (#217)
by Khedak on Sat Dec 23, 2000 at 03:46:10 PM EST

"taking advantage" is about intent. and since neither of us can determine either of theirs, then i don't see your conclusions as being terribly insightful.

Thank you for pointing out the incredibly obvious. I suppose that readers like yourself might have missed what was implicit in my comment. Yes, I made certain assumptions. To be specific, I assumed that had she not been intoxicated she would not have cheated, and the same for him. I made these assumptions because the alternatives were as follows:

(1) She would have consented regardless of intoxication, making the entire article unworthy of comment. There would be nothing to discuss if she had consented while of sound judgment.
(2) She would not have consented while intoxicated, but he got her intoxicated with the (sober) intent to get her in bed. Possible, I suppose, but he indicated otherwise in his write-up. He could be lying, but I don't think commentary saying "You're lying, you raped her" would be particularly insightful either.
(3) She would have consented while not intoxicated, but he would not have. This amounts to the "manipulative women" take seen in another comment on this post. Again, I don't see comments to the effect of "she raped you and then blamed you for it" as being particularly insightful either.

These possibilities exhausted, I decided the most useful commentary was the most complex case, where neither were of sound judgment and consented in that state, that what happened was a mess, an accident, of the sort young adults are all too familiar with, and addressed the issue as such.

Does that address your concerns?

[ Parent ]
Only one person cheated here (4.00 / 3) (#219)
by imperium on Sat Dec 23, 2000 at 05:04:34 PM EST

"You cheated with her"?!

No. You can't just "cheat"- our storyteller merely went along with her cheating, and who can blame him? So long as he's telling us the truth, it sounds like any request to stop would have been honoured.

She's therefore responsible for her relationship, and her alone.


[ Parent ]

Brilliant point (none / 0) (#257)
by Robert Gormley on Sat Dec 30, 2000 at 01:05:26 PM EST

I'm just repeating, but some things bear it:

Rape doesn't mean any sex that the female decides she should not have had, after she sobers up.

[ Parent ]

The life of Forest Gump (2.77 / 9) (#204)
by turtleshadow on Fri Dec 22, 2000 at 01:05:04 AM EST

NONE of us lead the life of Forest Gump where bad things happen to good people and things turn out all right in the end -- Jenny is not waiting for YOU bud!.
Drink and loose living == Bad things can happen. Count your self lucky and move on with life.

In the tradition of Rocky & Bullwinkle two better titles for your article:
  • Better to have been there and survived rather intact and wiser than to have never to have played at all.
  • Drunken party go'ers touch hot stove burner repeatedly and don't know why.

    Having my heart broken several times over serious problems your story is very sad in the fact your relationships seem built on sand. My empathy in the Holiday season.


  • fuzzy (1.33 / 3) (#205)
    by daevt on Fri Dec 22, 2000 at 05:33:54 AM EST

    thats a fuzzy area, in my opinion, if she does say, "yes", i stop till she does...
    Did she actively participate? (3.50 / 2) (#214)
    by tjones on Sat Dec 23, 2000 at 12:16:39 AM EST

    First, I voted -1, this should be a diary entry.

    Second, if she actively participated, without coercion, she has no grounds to scream rape. You state that you both "got off," which indicates that she was actively involved.

    If she had been passed out and you used her anyways, she might have a case.

    Obviously, IANAL and other disclaimers, but active participation without coercion is consent, and then some.

    Bottom line, she's scapegoating you because she feels guilty about "cheating" on her fiance.

    Hrm. (4.00 / 4) (#215)
    by skim123 on Sat Dec 23, 2000 at 01:33:02 AM EST

    Interesting. I think it, perhaps, a bit foolish to post this here, in the off chance she decides to press charges (very, very, very rare, and, granted, nothing too incriminating here, but anyway...)

    IMHO, you are legally innocent, she was obviously willingly participating. I don't think that you're morally innocent, but that is through the perception of my morals; I do not know your morals, so I can't comment on those or weigh your decision's rightness or wrongness, because I know not your moral code.

    Money is in some respects like fire; it is a very excellent servant but a terrible master.
    PT Barnum

    I don't know about Calif... (4.33 / 3) (#225)
    by GandalfGreyhame on Sat Dec 23, 2000 at 09:56:43 PM EST

    I don't know about the laws in California, but I do know a couple things about laws in New York State, may be similiar. Firstly, if either of you were under the influence, its automatically rape. Hell, if you were intoxicated you can say she raped you. Funky, eh? :) Secondly, it dosen't matter that she didn't say no, it matters that she didn't say YES. IANAL, blah blah blah blah


    According to the laws of the State of California (5.00 / 1) (#239)
    by LegionDaMany on Mon Dec 25, 2000 at 12:53:49 PM EST

    If she was intoxicated and intercourse occurred (which, thankfully, in this case did not) then, legally, he raped her. Unfortunately, he cannot say that she raped him because rape is defined, by the State of California, as a crime of a man upon a woman ... there is no such crime for a woman upon a man.
    Call me Legion for I am Many ...
    [ Parent ]
    sounds like the girl's guilt is surfacing.. (4.57 / 7) (#228)
    by Coram on Sun Dec 24, 2000 at 08:31:48 AM EST

    She remembers being asked the question and not responding, but responded to other questions ok. Whether or not she would have behaved in this way (ie. had 'sexual relations' with you) sober strangely doesn't seem to be important - she clearly was very much conscious and obviously was in no distress at the time. You were in the same condition as her, perhaps she should not have taken advantage of you. Drunk/drugged or not, she was a willing participant and pointing accusing fingers at you won't help her overcome her own demons...

    judo ergo sum
    What really bugs me about this whole thing (4.87 / 8) (#230)
    by MrSpey on Sun Dec 24, 2000 at 04:00:12 PM EST

    ... is that the standards are so different for the two different genders. In this case there was no intercouse nor did the physically stronger male force the weaker female do to anything she didn't want to. So lets look at this. They were both too intoxicated to give informed consent, but still gave consent. So why is he the asshole and she was taken advantage of? What she did is at least as bad as what he did, since she was engaged. Who was the villian if we turn Janet into James, and it's two guys getting drunk and fooling around with each other? Or if Farl turns into a female instead? It's all a bunch of crap. If you don't want to be unable to give informed consent, don't get intoxicated. If you get intoxicated voluntarily, anything that happens to you while you're messed up is your own get out. Period.

    Oh, yeah, Farl wanted advice. Here's some:
    Run. Run run run run run. Have nothing to do with this girl or her friend if you can. Don't try to figure out who was really at fault or what she was thinking or whatever, because you'll probably just end up getting in more trouble. Run.

    Mr. Spey
    Cover your butt. Bernard is watching.

    Standards ought to be different (1.50 / 6) (#232)
    by ubu on Sun Dec 24, 2000 at 07:38:49 PM EST

    The two genders are not the same. There ought to be different standards.

    It's a great advantage to women to be regarded as a race apart, an advantage which, as usual, they abuse unscrupulously.

    Female sensibilities about sex show underdeveloped maturity, responsibility, and analysis. At their worst, women are usually without inhibitions whatsoever. Having sex with a drunk woman is like having sex with an insensible child.


    As good old software hats say - "You are in very safe hands, if you are using CVS !!!"
    [ Parent ]
    No way. (3.00 / 1) (#234)
    by MrSpey on Mon Dec 25, 2000 at 12:30:56 AM EST

    So you're saying first that women are worse at handling sex and relationships than guys (which I don't mind too much, since I'm a guy, and us being more mature by nature would mean I really wasn't a fault all those times I thought I was ;-]) and second that there should therefore be different standards. From how I understand what you wrote, it's the responsibility of men to look after women. That's crap. You can't have a society in which there is equality and yet women have to be taken care of by men. And since most women won't settle for being less than men, we have to have equality, which means no double standard.

    Mr. Spey
    Cover your butt. Bernard is watching.

    [ Parent ]
    Nice sig (none / 0) (#236)
    by mad-ness on Mon Dec 25, 2000 at 02:46:34 AM EST

    Ender's Game, no?

    Insert witty signature here.
    [ Parent ]
    Apples are equal to oranges! (none / 0) (#246)
    by ubu on Tue Dec 26, 2000 at 01:15:07 PM EST

    You can't have a society in which there is equality and yet women have to be taken care of by men.

    All true.

    And since most women won't settle for being less than men, we have to have equality, which means no double standard.

    Uh, right. And cats won't settle for being less than dogs. News flash, "equality" is a feel-good term invented for the gullible masses. You can have "equality" with respect to something absolute (like law, for instance) but you can never have just plain "equality" when tangible units are involved.

    Just for the record, yes, that means men and women are not equal. The linear thinker will assume that I must then place one higher than the other. Welcome to the real world, friend, where nothing is nearly so simple. It's about time.

    As good old software hats say - "You are in very safe hands, if you are using CVS !!!"
    [ Parent ]
    Technically ... (none / 0) (#238)
    by LegionDaMany on Mon Dec 25, 2000 at 12:50:17 PM EST

    Having sex with a drunk woman is like having sex with an insensible child.
    According to the laws of the state of California, having sex with an intoxicated woman is rape. It doesn't matter if she gives consent in that state or not.
    Call me Legion for I am Many ...
    [ Parent ]
    Like they said. (5.00 / 1) (#242)
    by stinkwrinkle on Mon Dec 25, 2000 at 07:16:21 PM EST

    Arizona, too. I've always wondered how she can be too drunk to give consent, but I can't be too drunk to realize that she's too drunk to give consent. I guess guys are responsible no matter how drunk they get themselves, whereas women are not considered quite as capable in the eyes of the law. Funny thing, life. (It's what you make it....) Ah, well, I hate sex anyway. Misanthropy pays off.

    [ Parent ]
    Which is sad... (none / 0) (#258)
    by Robert Gormley on Sat Dec 30, 2000 at 01:08:57 PM EST

    ... because it is assuming the worst of people. I wonder if it's coincidental that California has the highest per capita rate of lawyers in the world?

    Alcohol is an anti-inhibitant (I forget the word). It doesn't magically reverse feelings of consent in the way Rohypnol or other drugs might. Though having said that, Rohypnol doesn't either. It just makes the person nonsensical, and in that case could qualify as rape. (If you need Rohypnol to sleep with someone, it says something. I don't think you can say the same of alcohol).

    [ Parent ]

    ZOE: How do you write women so well? (none / 0) (#253)
    by abdera on Wed Dec 27, 2000 at 06:03:16 PM EST

    MELVIN: I think of a man and take away reason and accountability.

    I personally don't agree with you, Ubu. I have known many females that had a great deal of restraint regarding sexual inhibitions even when quite drunk.

    Personal responsibility begins before one becomes intoxicated. If a particular female's sensibilities dictate that drunkenness removes all inhibitions whatsoever, then drunkenness becomes implied consent as far as I care.

    As for male responsibility, if a man finds himself neck deep in shit because he banged some beer soaked hussy, that's just too bad. Perhaps there really is something to the notion of getting to know someone first.

    Unfortunately for irresponsible males, many states agree with Ubu and Melvin.

    #224 [deft-:deft@98A9C369.ipt.aol.com] at least i don't go on aol
    [ Parent ]

    Oops, bad karma (3.50 / 4) (#237)
    by daani on Mon Dec 25, 2000 at 06:38:43 AM EST

    Hmmm, the moral trap of drugs (thank goodness for it eh?). Still, I guess the direct outcomes are:

    1. She got hurt,
    2. Her fiancee will get hurt, if he finds out,
    3. You got hurt (as a result of her being hurt and lashing out at you).

    The only one you could have anticipated is the second, so you could be held partially responsible for that. Your own moral code applies really.

    About the only positive thing you can do is admit you were "wrong", and see if she admits that too. Not that you were "wrong", just that a conciliatory apology would probably go the furthest towards reducing the bad karma created for all concerned.


    It's rape. (4.33 / 6) (#240)
    by Alik on Mon Dec 25, 2000 at 12:58:36 PM EST

    Forget the laws or the morals. If this comes into anything resembling the public eye, you will be considered a rapist. Why? Because she will spin the story to her boyfriend such that she was too drunk to say no, and all any legal authorities will see is a tearful woman demanding justice. That's the way it works. Even if she accepts an apology, get thee to a lawyer pronto, because she can turn around and sic the justice system on you the second she gets into a bad mood. With a lawyer, you can dodge the legal bullet, although your social circle will generally polarize into the men supporting you and the women hating your guts.

    Now, personally, I think you're a moron for getting involved in anything like this, but I've always been a social recluse anyway. And, of course, since you were drunk and stoned at the time, there's no way we know your side isn't as distorted as hers. No matter what, you're going to pay a price in terms of emotional stress and probably money paid to the courts and the lawyers. Everything's got a price.

    what remains unaddressed... (4.25 / 4) (#241)
    by plastik55 on Mon Dec 25, 2000 at 03:39:56 PM EST

    Most of the comments here seem to address the complexity fo the situation: both parties intoxicated, neither party denying concent, both parties participating. I see the politically correct viewpoint (it was rape), the politically incorrect (she's a bitch) and what seems to be the most prevalent/highly rated here, the post- or trans- politically correct viewpoint (it's an ambiguous situation; farl is not absolved of guilt, nor is he entirely to blame.) Fine so far. But no one really sems to have addressed the event which started the situation...

    If I were the woman's fiancé, and I heard the same story, I would be angrier at the woman than at farl. (On the other hand it'd be farl that I'd go pick a fistfight with.)

    Why would a sober, engaged woman tell a complete stranger that she wanted to fuck him? This is not the behavior that is expected of an engaged person. When a woman says she wants to fuck someone I read it as a statement of intent, only slightly removed from the act itself. (This is my interpretation from the fiancé's veiwpoint. Farl had better be more careful in this situation, and should not interpret it this way.) I can tell you that any relationship that I have with a woman who goes around propositioning strangers is going to be short-lived--even if the proposition is qualified with an "oh, I'm engaged, so I can't," I would still view it as a proposition.

    I don't think my attitude is unusual. The woman must have certainly known what it meant to say something like that. So I think that she cannot be absolved of blame, and that it falls far short of rape.

    As for farl, well, why did you start to "reach around" and "play with" her when there wasn't any clear indication that she wanted to? Man, in the course of doing what happened "naturally," did she even kiss you of her own accord? If not, well... yes, you did impose yourself on this woman. You passed over what may have been acceptable for the mildly intoxicated -- backrubs, snuggling -- into what may have been clearly unacceptable (fondling, mutual masturbation) without anything in between. Or maybe you just left that out of your story.

    In any case, I don't consider "snuggling closer together" to be clear indication of consent; it's just what people do when they're asleep, and if she was half asleep, that's way more important, and affects her decision-making ability way more than if she's drunk or stoned. I've occasionally found myself with wandering hands without realizing that my partner was half- or fully asleep. Shit, I've even had my hands start wandering while I was asleep-- but that's beside the point. When she's drifting off, her ablity to give, or refuse consent is very impaired. Good thing (and lucky for me) that those things happened to me in longer-term relationships where there is already a degree of implied consent, and my girlfriend could just roll over and go back to sleep without much difficulty. That's not the kind of thing that should happen with someone you just met--you should have your guard up for a while trying to gauge if there's clear and unambiguous consent.

    Personal Responsibility (3.50 / 8) (#243)
    by clarioke on Mon Dec 25, 2000 at 11:39:47 PM EST

    Hi. Remember Personal Responsibility? How about Mature Decision Making? Where, along this whole mess, was there any indication of anyone taking any personal responsiblity? Sure, I probably shouldn't be the postergirl for personal responsibility; I'm a huge fan of letting shit hit the fan instead of just facing it. Then again, that's shit with best friends and ex boyfriends.

    Not strangers.

    Not engaged strangers.

    Regardless of how hot they might be.

    Then, there's the issue of the drunken state of all involved. Congratulations, you've found an escape from taking responsibility, good for you. Hats off to American society, enabling another fine member to shirk responsibility.

    Advice? Here we go.

    • Face it. You screwed up. Royally.

    • Don't expect forgivenes.

    • Never do it again.

    WTF? (none / 0) (#255)
    by Peeteriz on Fri Dec 29, 2000 at 10:22:12 AM EST

    So, you are saying to 'Not ever again' have sex with a stranger? Personal responsibility is to recognize what you have done, and the poster did so. The problem is that the act was OK with him, and it seemed to be OK with her, but later she changed her mind. Such changes might ruin their relationships, sure, but I do not see any grounds for a criminal offense here. The personal responsibility here goes for Janet. If you want to be faithful to your fiancee, then you say 'NO' at the first opportunity. If you at the time don't care about being faithful, it is your problem, and whoever you are having sex with shouldn't have to 'guess' wether you care about your fiancee or not.

    [ Parent ]
    Janet is just projecting her guilt... (4.00 / 3) (#244)
    by John_Booty on Tue Dec 26, 2000 at 03:03:25 AM EST

    To me, rape is forcing yourself sexually on someone who either

    1. tells you not to,
    2. or is incapabale of resisting or giving permission

    Did Janet tell Farl "no"? No, she didn't. Although she didn't give him an actual "yes", he flat-out asked her if he should stop and she didn't tell him to.

    Okay, was Janet incapable or resisting or giving permission? This is a gray area because we don't know HOW drunk she was. It sounds like she was able to answer Farl's "does it feel good?" questions and was able to get Farl off too, so... it seems as though she was able to answer a simple "do you want me to stop?" question. It's hard for any of us to know for sure, but from Farl's account, it sounds like she definitely knew what was going on and would have been able to tell Farl to stop, but she chose not to.

    It definitely sounds to me like Janet wanted a piece of Farl, and simply felt guilty about the whole thing since she had cheated on her fiancee, so she used alcohol as an excuse and tried to blame the whole thing on Farl.

    Alcohol or any other drug is not an excuse for your actions! If you're using any kind of drug of your own free will, you have to accept the consequences. Of course, if you're taking advantage of someone who's drunker than you, that's morally wrong too.

    I think most of the blame here lies on Janet. She's the one who cheated on her fiancee, not Farl. If you're planning on staying faithful to your fiancee, you don't tell other people you'd like to fuck them, accept sensual massages, and then curl up with them in bed.

    Now, what we really need is Janet's account and an unbiased 3rd-person account to really get to the bottom of this soap opera. :-)

    (Note... I don't think that ANY level of flirtation or drunkeness mkes unwanted sex acceptable. Any unwanted sex is STILL RAPE. But, based on Farl's account, it sounds like Janet was more than willing)

    Anime, game, and music reviews at www.bootyproject.org... by fans, for fans.
    Rediculous (3.33 / 3) (#245)
    by Joshua on Tue Dec 26, 2000 at 11:56:00 AM EST

    Okay, my take on this matter is very colored by my opinions and ideals, but I don't think that makes it any less valid. Assuming your story was mostly as-it-happened, I think you're actions in this matter, Farl, where perfectly fine and reasonable, as well as apprpriate. Janet was rather obviously flirting with you something hardcore, and wanted to have some physical fun with you. Since you wanted the same thing, everything is fine. The issue is only really her guilt. Guilt over something that I personally find stupid and rediculous. I am very much of the opinion that things such as jealousy and monogomy are rather unnecessary (I was very influenced by books like Stranger in a Strange Land by Robert A. Heinlein incase anyone is interested). If two people feel enough of a connection that they mutually want to have sex, or have any sexual relations, cudos to them! More enjoyment in this world can only be a good thing, and if Janet's fiance is unhappy at this, that's his problem, not yours, although somewhat Janet, as she obviously led him to believe that she wouldn't be doing things like what she did. Drugs (read drugs and alcohol) are also no excuse. Drugs only help you release your inhibitions and do what you wanted to do anyway, so if she did something consentually, and she obviously wanted to fool around with you, so I feel that there is nothing wrong with the fact that she did.

    Well, that's my opinion, as idealist and extremist as it is. Good luck, Farl, and don't let shit like this stop you from enjoying life and everything in it.


    I can't help you legally, but... (1.00 / 1) (#247)
    by nekulturny on Tue Dec 26, 2000 at 10:27:28 PM EST

    I can say that I don't think you should feel guilty. So you did something you shouldn't have. That's life. It isn't hard to say "no," especially if you are able to say "it feels good." It seems to me that she feels guilty about cheating on her fiance and she's trying to pass that shame onto you; don't let her i.e. don't lose sleep over it. Just write it off as a learning experience and the next time you're in that type of situation just roll over and go to sleep.
    __ Absinthe makes the heart grow fonder.
    If you haven't already done so... (5.00 / 2) (#248)
    by cr0sh on Tue Dec 26, 2000 at 11:45:26 PM EST

    RETAIN A LAWYER. You need to speak to someone about this case who is knowledgable about the laws in your area. She may not do anything - but then again, who knows what may happen in the future (near or otherwise). With that said, IANAL and all...

    This may or may not be rape - depending on the law, there generally must be informed consent, and intercourse. It sounds like you didn't get informed consent (as opposed to merely consent), due to the intoxication involved, and the lack of saying anything (YES/NO) to give consent, or not give it. Furthermore, depending on your area, you may just as well cry rape too (though I believe in Cali a man cannot be raped by a woman - that it is a male only crime - funny, eh?). Also, no intercourse occurred, so maybe rape didn't take place...

    You didn't state ages, though I imagine that all involved were "of-age" - that could complicate matters. Also, you have to be wary of while that this may not be rape, it may be able to be classified as sexual assault, or possibly some kind of molestation (I don't know if molestation is reserved for minors, whereas assault is for adults - I tend to wonder why they need two seperate charges for two different ages, when it tends to be the same crime, that of sexual assault of an individual).

    So, get yourself to a lawyer, NOW - get prepared while you are still a free man, and able to help in whatever manner possible. There is a very good chance that her guilt (over cheating on her fiance - though I must say you acted with impropriety too - but not at here level) may cause her to tell her fiance about the "rape", and may set various things in motions (and causing you in short order to land in jail awaiting trial)...

    girl feels guilty for being a drunk slut (4.00 / 2) (#250)
    by DoggyDog on Wed Dec 27, 2000 at 09:58:25 AM EST

    "but I am really in love with my fiancee, so I cant fuck you. Otherwise I would.".. Yep.. she sounds like she had a dose of liquid panty hose remover.. just be glad she isn't marrying you! All you need is a closet alcoholic party girl who wakes up everyday with a concious.

    Along the lines of ... (1.50 / 2) (#251)
    by hyper_freak on Wed Dec 27, 2000 at 12:32:45 PM EST

    some of the debate about the discrimination of men. You should read "Stiffed : The Betrayal of the American Man" people love it or hate it, but it always evokes a lot of thought. The title alone speaks a lot about the book, and it's written by a woman. Maybe I (or someone else) should write up a little blurb/review of it. After all the comments and discussion on this story, it'd certainly generate a lot f commentary.

    where's Jesus? (2.50 / 2) (#264)
    by anonymous cowerd on Wed Jan 03, 2001 at 07:45:52 PM EST

    ...must not read K5, 'cause if He did, and being the sympathetic sort, but also being too busy with other pressing matters to come up with an all new response for our bud Farl, He'd likely have recycled His sound old shtick: asked the gathered readership, who among you has not sinned? and after everybody shuts up and leaves, the oldest first, He'd continue, so, Farl, who here now accuses you? and Farl'd say, naturally, no one, and He'd say, nor do I, go, and sin no more.

    Leaving Farl, for the future, stuck with puzzling out for himself what exactly sin is.

    I myself don't have the brass to be so radical, but Jesus is widely renowned as a moral authority, so there.

    Yours WDK - WKiernan@concentric.net

    "This calm way of flying will suit Japan well," said Zeppelin's granddaughter, Elisabeth Veil.

    Consenting to Rape | 266 comments (179 topical, 87 editorial, 0 hidden)
    Display: Sort:


    All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective companies. The Rest © 2000 - Present Kuro5hin.org Inc.
    See our legalese page for copyright policies. Please also read our Privacy Policy.
    Kuro5hin.org is powered by Free Software, including Apache, Perl, and Linux, The Scoop Engine that runs this site is freely available, under the terms of the GPL.
    Need some help? Email help@kuro5hin.org.
    My heart's the long stairs.

    Powered by Scoop create account | help/FAQ | mission | links | search | IRC | YOU choose the stories!