Escape your life for a little while — come play in mine.

A Question on Rape – UPDATED X2

Posted by Lissa on September 22, 2010

Now you see why I was posting nothing but kittehs yesterday?  Before we start, I would like to emphasize that all parties in Situations A, B and C described here are hypothetical.  HYPOTHETICAL. Any resemblance to real persons, living or dead, is purely coincidental.

In order for us to rationally discuss the item of controversy, we must first lay the baseline:

If at any point during sexual congress (and that means before and also means mid-coitus) Person A says “Don’t”, “Stop”, or “I don’t want to do this”, if Person B does not immediately stop then s/he is committing rape.

Period.  The End.  If you don’t believe this, kindly seek the nearest exit, because you are not welcome at my blog.  Ever.

However, I am VERY confident that my regular visitors are still here, so let us continue to my question:

Is it possible for there to be an incident of rape without any participating party being a rapist?

I say yes.


This unborn discussion has been rattling around in my head ever since the B, B & Guns when Bonnie told us she was a survivor. She said no, and he didn’t stop.

Situation A:

Alpha and Alphette are quasi-dating.  Or hell, married; doesn’t make a difference.  Alphette says stop, Alpha ignores her and finishes what he started.

Verdict: Rape.


I followed the link from Bonnie and found Miss Britt.

Situation B:

Beta and Betty are both drinking at a party.  Beta starts to get it on.  Betty tells him to stop. He doesn’t stop.

Wait, no.  This is still situation A.

Verdict: Rape.


But what about Situation C?

Charlie and Charlotte are hardcore drinking at a party.  They go back to a room to fool around.  They’re both drunk as skunks but manage to fumble their way through sex before they pass out.

When Charlotte wakes up in the morning she remembers nothing. Was she drugged?  Or was it just stupidly overindulging in tequila?

She is ashamed. She begins to get small flashes of memory*, but they are only split seconds — just physical instants that give her no clue how it actually went down.  She suffers from depression* compounded by guilt; she tells herself it was her fault for partying too hard and whatever happened, she was “asking for it.”

Verdict: . . . . . . . ..


At many colleges and universities, inebriation is considered to limit or sometimes prohibit an act of consensual sex.  See, for example, Boston College:

If an alleged perpetrator has sexual intercourse with a victim who is incapable of consent by reason of sleep, drunkenness, stupefaction, or unconsciousness, the alleged perpetrator may be convicted of rape and the only “force” necessary for conviction is the minimal force required for penetration. In the case of drunkenness, this does not mean that the victim was merely under the influence of alcohol but that he or she was intoxicated to the extent that he or she was unable to give informed consent to the act. Rape may occur between people who know each other or who have had prior consensual relations with each other. [emphasis in original]

Charlotte was far too drunk to give informed consent.  By the rules, this constitutes an act of rape.

But I do not think that makes Charlie a rapist.


Do you see what I’m getting at here?  I’m trying to be very clear about not blaming Charlotte.  She is showing signs of trauma and clearly had a horrible experience.  I consider her a victim of rape.

But in a situation of mutual drunkenness as I described, is it Charlie’s fault that he didn’t know that? If Charlotte is willingly (albeit drunkenly) pulling off clothes, stumbling into bed etc., are you going to say Charlie is a rapist for the sex that he thought was consensual?  If Charlotte never said “stop”, never said “don’t”, and was an active participant in the run-up and also *during* the event, can you properly say that Charlie is a rapist?

I do not think so.


Why on earth would I open such an ugly, traumatic and serious can of worms on a blog habitually dedicated to cooking, kittehs and Kahrs?  Well, here’s one reason:

Women, young and old, need to realize that every man out there, no matter his appearance, persuasion, race, profession and/or religious inclination , is a potential sexual predator. Hell, men have been trying to abuse us sexually since we were in grade school, from fathers and uncles and brothers, let alone non-related males, a girl child is not safe, if she is not under her mother’s wing. The woman’s liberation movement only made it easier for men to get some free sex. Be always be aware that men’s most sigle minded purpose is to mate, and to mate as much and as often and with as many women as they can possibly get away with. Some men take this desire to the last possible degree, and they will have no patience with courtship and rituals, and even kill their victims to hide their crime. Of these, we must be even more leery of. The problem is, that it is hard sometimes to tell the violent predators, from the common ones. That is why women must treat every single encounter with a male, as a potential rape, and avoid any kind of confinement alone with a male. Do not give men a chance to have privacy with your body, unless you have made a conscius, not a drunken, decision to engage in sexual relations. Don’t lose sight of this very real clear an impending danger… A woman is never safe, if she is not aware of her surroundings and the fact that she is perceived as weak and seen as a potential victim by these would be predators…
soy1loba 9:26 AM

“That is why women must treat every single encounter with a male, as a potential rape, and avoid any kind of confinement alone with a male.”  What an absolutely horrible way of going through life.  It does not differentiate between situational awareness — always keeping an eye on your surroundings so you can spot potential problems — with assuming as a matter of course that every single man out there probably wants to rape you.

Here’s another, which I will not directly quote:  It is not uncommon for comments on rape posts to contain words like “It makes me ashamed to be a man.”

I think men get a bum rap on this.  Should I feel guilty for being a woman since Susan Smith and Andrea Yates were women also?  And (this part is not hypothetical) I was a hall counselor for incoming freshmen once upon a time.  I had to tell the young men, “Dude.  Be seriously careful.  If you’re both drinking, and she decides the next morning that she didn’t mean to do it, that can count as rape.  She wasn’t able to give consent, no matter if she ripped off your clothes and jumped your bones.  Be careful.”


Allow me to emphasize again the differences between Situations A, B and C.  The men in Situations A and B were clearly told “No” and proceeded regardless.  The man in Situation C was not given any such signal.


I throw the question out to my readers:

Is it possible to still sympathize and empathize with Charlotte as a rape victim, without excoriating Charlie as a rapist?

*Thank you to Bonnie for the RAINN links, which I got from her post here.  HUGE thanks also because I emailed her this post last night (in case she wanted to read it ahead of time and to make sure she was okay with the linkage) and she wrote a VERY kind response.  Among other bits of wisdom, she said:

I’ve read it, and not only do I not mind, I’m VERY happy that you’ve chosen to address this.

If I spent my life looking at all men as the enemy (which is tempting after a situation like that), I wouldn’t have gotten married, and I would have never gotten started with blogging.  Men are everywhere.  Women’d be crippled if they had that view.

Guy she married is pretty lucky, ain’t he? 🙂

UPDATE: Thank you so much for all your insightful comments!  In response, I’d like to clarify one aspect of this post.

Situation C was created entirely out of my head.  I can therefore tell you with authority what happened.  (Ah, the godlike power of authoring fiction . . . )

But it’s not always that easy in real life.

Consider this Rashomen effect interpretation:

The facts: Delta and Darlene are at a party together. They have sex that night.

Delta’s point of view: He was drinking with that hot chick Darlene and scored.  Awwwww yeah!

Darlene’s point of view: She recalls having a few drinks at the party and the next thing she remembers, she’s waking up with Delta the next morning.

The situation could therefore be:

1. Delta and Darlene drank too much. Darlene made a bad decision and greatly regrets it.

Reaction: Darlene needs to take responsibility for bad choices made as an adult.  We feel sorry for her and empathize with her, but she made her own decisions; she wasn’t victim to a perpetrator.  (Except for herself.)

But it could also be

2. Darlene got drugged last night. The first drink she took had a mind altering substance. Delta slipped it into her beverage, whisked her upstairs when she got foggy and had sex with her.

Reaction: Delta is a rapist. We feel pain, rage and empathy for Darlene. She should have had a buddy watching her back, but she didn’t commit any other errors and she definitely didn’t deserve to be roofied.

But what if it’s yet another situation?

3. Darlene got slipped a drug by Omega, the douchebag in the corner who intended to take advantage of her later.  She got friendly with Delta instead who, not knowing she was drugged, thought it was consensual sex.

Reaction:  We feel pain, rage and empathy for Darlene. She should have had a buddy watching her back, but she didn’t commit any other errors and she definitely didn’t deserve to be roofied.  But it’s NOT Delta’s fault; everyone was drinking and he wasn’t sober enough to realize that his date was drugged.

And now, what if it deteriorates into complete he-said-she-said?

4. Darlene says that she has no memories of the night before, believes that she was drugged and was therefore coerced into sex.  She was too ashamed to go for the urine test the next day so there isn’t any physical proof. Delta says that Darlene was partying right alongside him and that sex was consensual.

Reaction:  This is the type of situation where I would lean towards giving sympathy to Darlene while not assigning blame to Delta.  Your milage may vary; I don’t think there’s Only One Right Answer here.

Oh, and I am very glad that we all agree — soy1loba has some serious issues.

UPDATED UPDATE: Wow! I’m amazed by the number of people who left thoughtful, intelligent comments below.  As I wrote before, I’m not looking for Only One Right Answer; that being said, my commenters fell heavily on the side of personal responsibility.  In retrospect, that doesn’t surprise me; a lot (most?) of my readers are gunnies, and gunnies are HUGE believers in personal responsibility.  You break it you bought it; it’s up to you to insure your own safety; etc. etc.

Number One Lesson to take away from this: Sex + alcohol can = massive trouble.

So behave yourself, kiddos, and always have a friend watch your back!

29 Responses to “A Question on Rape – UPDATED X2”

  1. BlindMice1 said

    I read these “what if” scenarios often shake my head in wonder.

    Based on the initial response to situation C, it would appear that the only difference between being a rape victim and a sexually active individual is if one party feels regret after the fact. That’s far to thin a line to use for any decision impacting the life of another person. No action = An Action.

    In situation C one of two things is true, either is was consensual, or their are two rape victims. Why is it that in these “what if” scenarios only the girl who can wake up with a vague memory and a feeling of regret? Why can’t the guy feel wronged. This just reinforces the myth that females lack capacity for sexual drive, and only men actually want sex.

    Your advice to the college freshman was totally correct. That’s why we used to have standards that discouraged going to “wild parties”, getting drunk and having free sex with strangers. You just did not know what would happen and it carried a risk.

    That leads to an important point.
    Life is about choices, and consequences.
    1. A choice to attend a drinking party rather than going to the library or out with friends, or to a movie.
    2. A choice to attend a drinking party without anyone along as backup. (this is just stupid, regardless of what gender you are)
    3. A choice to drink beyond reasonable control.
    4. A choice to go back to someone’s room.
    5. A choice to get into bed, while drunk with a drunk person of the opposite gender.
    6. A choice to (hopefully) put on some form of protection.
    7. A choice to start “fooling around”.
    8. A choice to get naked.
    9. A choice to engage in sex.
    10. A choice to say nothing about wanting the other party to stop.

    By the time we get to choice 10, I have to say that probable cause of intent to engage in sexual congress has been established beyond any chance of reasonable doubt.
    10 stupid decisions where made. The only crime would be to blame some other party for the outcome.
    Of course this has two sides. If the “other” party also did the same thing then they should expect to suffer some repetitional damage for their actions, especially if their [girl/boy] friend finds out, but there is nothing for the police to get involved in here.

    The historical precedent where “gentlemen” did not go to such parties, and “good girls” did not go to such parties had a practical basis in protecting the physical and mental well being of both parties as well as their good reputation.

    So to answer your question: “Is it possible to still sympathize and empathize with Charlotte as a rape victim, without excoriating Charlie as a rapist?”

    Theoretically yes.

    But I have a better question:
    “Is it possible to still sympathize and empathize with Charlotte/Charlie as an idiot with poor judgment and decision making skills, while recognizing them as simply facing the consequences of their actions which are a direct result of their choice?”

    To which I can only say, Hell Yes!

  2. Butch Cassidy said

    Okay, I was wrong, this did make me angry. “Hell, men have been trying to abuse us sexually since we were in grade school, from fathers and uncles and brothers, let alone non-related males, a girl child is not safe, if she is not under her mother’s wing.” Whoever wrote that is not welcome anywhere near my family. Calling a father a paedophilic, incestuous rapist simply because he is a male is disgusting.

    Charlie and Charlotte are both idiots. Neither is a rapist, nor has either been a victim of rape as the story is presented. Just because she feels traumatized does not mean that she is a victim of anything. Same for Charlie, no sympathy here, they did something stupid and if either feels traumatized, well, that is a consequence of drunken promiscuity. If either said that they learned not to do such a thing again, then I would be willing to sit and help them work through some stuff as the proverbial shoulder to lean on.

    Some of the real old-time north-country women up here feel that a married woman can’t be raped by her husband because as a wife, sex is expected. My spine crawls whenever they say it. Anyone who refuses to stop after the word no should be taken out and stoned to death, publicly. Sex is to be expected form no one.

    Great post, and anyone who would find it in any way controversial isn’t worth talking to.

  3. mike w. said

    The man in Situation C was not given any such signal.

    And that is what makes Charlie a horny drunk guy and not a rapist. Assuming Charlotte is getting naked and taking an active role in the humping Charlie is going to assume it’s consentual unless told otherwise. The fact that both parties might have made poor choices (or one’s they’d later regret) does not make either party a rapist.

    “That is why women must treat every single encounter with a male, as a potential rape, and avoid any kind of confinement alone with a male.”

    If you are an attractive female then most men probably would like to have sex with you. That said, finding a woman attractive and wanting to force yourself on her are two unrelated and entirely different things.

  4. Excellent post, Lissa!

    I don’t feel that Charlotte is a rape victim, I think she has a drinking problem. Do I feel sorry for her for her experience? Absolutely. Was she raped? No.

    Make better choices, people!

  5. I have to disagree with you on this one Lissa, as presented, Charlotte is not a rape victim. IF Charlie was sober(ish) and knew that Charlotte was too drunk to consent, that would be another story. But that was not the scenerio that was presented. Charlie and Charlotte had drunken sex. Either one is free to feel remorse. As Charlotte’s friend, it is perfectly right to comiserate with her having made a bad decision and be a shoulder to cry on. I am not trying to say that Charlotte’s anguish is any less worthy than someone who was raped, it is just differant.

    Here is my understanding of the situation. Charlotte goes to a party, meets Charlie (maybe already knew him, maybe not), gets drunk, and volunteerly goes with him to somewhere, and the “do it”. In this, Charlotte DECIDED to go to the party, DECIDED to get drunk, DECIDED to go with Charlie to wherever, and DECIDED to have sex with him. If at the time of any one of these decisions Charlotte would have said no, and Charlie forced her, then Charlotte would BE a rape victim. But that isn’t the scenerio as described.

    The real issue here is culpability. By allowing Charlotte to claim the title of rape victim, she gets to ignore the fact that SHE decided to have sex. She gets to act like it is someone else’s fault. Charlotte doesn’t have to change her behavior, because she was never in the wrong. Charlotte never has to do that uncomfortable thing called learning from her mistakes.

    I know there are going to be plenty of women (and some men) who read this and say I’m just an asshole blaming the victim. To believe this, you have to also believe women are somehow inferior and unable to make decisions for themselves. Shame on you! Women are just as human and just as capable of making their own decisions as men are, and just as culpable for those decisions. To say anything less is an insult to women everywhere.


  6. Wally said

    Good post Lissa. I’d like to throw in my 2c here:

    Charlotte can’t be raped without creating a huge double standard:

    A) She and Charlie are both drunk, in exactly the same situation. She shouldn’t get a ‘victim’ tag for something they both chose to do and are equal participants in.

    B) Consenting while drunk is still consent. Just as voting while drunk is still a legally binding vote and driving while drunk is still driving. I don’t recall any DUI defendant claiming ‘the rules of the road didn’t apply to me because I was drunk.’

    In this case, Charlotte gives consent when she decides to get drunk. Everyone knows how drunk works. Drink a lot and get stupid. No magic there.

    Further, if Charlotte is drunk and Charlie is sober, it’s still not rape based Charlotte’s decision to get drunk. Likewise, if Charlie drugged Charlotte, that’s rape no question – she didn’t consent to anything.

    Applying the BC “drunk cant give consent” rule gets hazy. Using that case, Let’s say that I don’t drink at all and my GF does. If being drunk means she is incapable of giving consent, it would have to be being drunk is ALWAYS incapable of giving consent. (pretty much the same language & logic for statutory rape too.) So if we fooled around, even if I had a permission slip signed when she was sober, I would be still be a rapist since she cannot legally give consent at that moment. And that is a hard definition of rapist, there is no wiggle room – she can’t give consent, I am a rapist, end of story.

  7. Shoothouse Barbie said

    IMO it is unfair – nay, a horrible injustice – to make men *solely* responsible for deciding whether a woman does not have the mental capacity (e.g. due to be inebriated) to give consent. This doesn’t mean the correlary is true – that a woman who is inebriated can be deemed not rightly judging when to say no, and this also doesn’t imply that it’s commendable in any way, shape, or form, for a guy to put the moves on a trashed girl *with the knowledge and intent* – knowing that she’s more likely to put out if she’s unable to make good judgments. The bottom line is that a person is ultimately to be held responsible for their character. If Charlotte gets drunk and sleeps with Charlie because she wasn’t thinking clearly, it’s called a mistake, not rape. Even if she decides after the fact that she didn’t want to sleep with him, and that it was his idea to go up to his dorm room, it’s not rape if she didn’t say no (also, it’s a different story if she is passed out before things get going, and different arguments would apply). A person can’t decide after the fact that they were raped because in retrospect they would’ve preferred not to have had sex.

    Now, there are honorable men out there. I do believe it behooves men to act honorably to defend their collective name against this “predator-just-out-to-sow-their-oats” stereotype, but you still need to draw a line in the sand, somewhere. Often times, in case C, the man is just as drunk as the woman. No one has the capacity to make a responsible decision, ergo, no one should be held more responsible that the other. A man who does step up and say, “we shouldn’t do this, we might regret it, it could lead us to a really unpleasant place down the road if we don’t really both want this,” is very honorable. Conversly, a man who doesn’t give a crap if the woman he’s about to fall drunkenly in bed with will hate herself in the morning, may be (not is, but may be) a scumbag, but he is not a rapist. Drunken consent is still consent. It’s stupid consent, but it’s still consent. And – one last thing on this paragraph – if Charlie is sober and Charlotte is wasted – he *should* step up, but not doing so doesn’t make him a rapist, nor does it mean Charlotte was raped by charlie. It does mean that Charlotte made a mistake and also that Charlie falls more on the scumbag side of the line – but is not a rapist.

  8. Sarah said

    Charlotte’s not a rape victim; she made a series of decisions and did not, at any point in the scenario, signal Charlie that she wasn’t interested in having sex. He didn’t force her to drink or trick her into it. He didn’t have sex with an unconscious woman. He didn’t ignore signals that he needed to stop. He didn’t put roofies or date-rape drugs in her drinks. He and Charlotte had drunken sex, which can lead to regret the morning after – as can stone-cold-sober sex in some cases.

    Both of them could have made better decisions, yes, but I don’t see any criminal act in the scenario. I feel for Charlotte because she’s traumatized, but she had choices. We’ve all done things that we later regretted, whether we were in impaired states at the time or not, and we have to face the consequences.

    So, basically, Stuart the Viking’s last paragraph gets a “Ditto” from me.

  9. C isn’t rape in any context or from any direction. There was no intent.

  10. A Nonny Mouse said

    Sorry for the nom de guerre but I know a few people around here and would rather not have some things get back to my family. Yea, my email address is real Lissa if you decide you need it.

    I’ve had several casual sexual encounters. I have turned down sex because I thought the lady was too drunk to make a rational decision. I have proceeded with sex even though I was being told ‘go to sleep’. I have been accused of being a predator preying on a woman that was vulnerable when I thought was simply seeking comfort and a respite from loneliness. It’s not always clear cut.

    Drunken sex is always a bad idea with a stranger. One lady that I turned down was not a complete stranger, nor was she stumbling drunk. However she was married and I didn’t want to take a chance on her feeling regret in the morning.

    The one that kept saying ‘go to sleep’ was one of those “no means yes” situations. I knew her fairly well as we were in a military school together. We had been drinking some. But she was the one that got the room. To me everything about the situation said “yes”. I asked her the next morning what she’d have down if I just went to sleep. She said “I would’ve woke you up”.

    As I got older I become more insistent on making sure there was informed consent. If not explicit than at least a very strong indication that sex was desired. Like going into the bedroom and coming out in a very sexy negligee.

    Sometimes it can be a fine line. Does a soft “no” while kissing someone really mean “NO” or is a token protestation? I’m pretty sure I’ve never had sex against someone’s will but convincing is not the same as forcing. If I hear a definitive “no” I stop.

    I think most of these situation come down to intoxication. If she’s too drunk to hold a rational conversation then she’s too drunk to consent. And guys if you’re too drunk to hold a rational conversation then you’d better keep it zipped up.

  11. Pat said

    If you drink, drive and run someone over you will wake up feeling regret for what you did while intoxicated. GBeing drunk does not make you less culpable for your act nor does it get you off the hook. You go to jail. The same should go for consenting to sex while drunk. You may regret what you did but you did it. You altered your state of mind and were a willing participant. The consequence is sometimes guilt. The guilt is no different than getting drunk and running your mouth about something that shouldn’t be said and hurting a friend or getting in a fight because you were intoxicated. You are responsible for your actions no matter what you condition provided that you are the one that put yourself in that condition. Being drugged is a whole other story. The scenario where person A is drugged by B but get involved with C who has no knowlege of what B has done is just a sad state of affairs for all involved.

  12. I think you pretty much have it right. In most of these D scenarios, Darlene really needs to be a little more careful about what parties she goes to, or have a “wing man” who will watch her back. She sure seems to get into a lot of trouble.

    Oh, and #4. Darlene needs to grow a pair and go in and be tested! By not, she is living the life of the volunteer victim. If she is scared of reprisals, she needs to find a friend that she can trust. I would hope that any of my female friends know that if they were ever in such a situation, they could come to me and not only would I hold their hand and not judge, if Delta or Omega or whoever decided to come after her for standing up for herself I would gladly be there to shoot them in the face.


  13. breda said

    If Charlie and Charlotte were drunk during sex, and neither of them consented (or didn’t), and both of them feel guilty and dirty the next morning, then by my measure they’re both rape victims.

  14. alan said

    Drunk: yes

    Sex: yes

    Dirty and guilty after (damn those beer goggles!): YES


    I’ve been raped!

  15. B said

    What’s with the need for our culture to declare a victim…?

    Why can’t people just accept responsibility for their actions, learn from it and move on.

    And for anyone stupid enough to need clarification… I referring ONLY to the 3rd scenario, not an act of violence perpetrated on another person.


  16. Brad K. said


    In situation C, there is clearly a statutory rape. That is, the statue, the law, is written in such a way that there is no circumstance that alters the legal conclusion. She was too drunk for informed consent, there was sex, a crime was committed, rape, in this case.

    Which demeans the description of sexual assault with aggressive physical force.

    Concider that Echo and Echette are each 12 and 11 years old. They find the wine bottle, snuggle down on the sofa, and in the night, tab P is inserted into slot V. Clearly, this is statutory rape, exactly what the law is written to forbid. Was Echo or Echette the victim of statutory rape – as in above, was Charlie or Charlette the victim, presuming neither passed the “informed consent” test? While the law doesn’t specify, my bet is that any prosecutor is going to act as if the female present – assuming Charlette and Echette are female – was the “wronged” party. Possibly Echo and Charlie could escape prosecution by pleading victim first – but they would have to forego taking responsibility for their actions. Is society served? Dunno. It seems that a better law would invalidate rape charges for anyone voluntarily putting themselves under the influence of any substance, such that they couldn’t give informed consent or establish a reliable consent.

    As for all men are predators – so are women. Back in the day, some cultures expected young folk to frolic until the girl came up pregnant – then she married the current guy. No raised eyebrows, the wailing and gnashing of teeth blew over quickly.

    Suppose Foxtrot and Foxette get together. Foxette lies about being free of STDs, and being protected against pregnancy. Is Foxtrot capable of giving informed consent?

  17. Peter said

    Lissa, I’ve linked to this post on my blog, and invited my readers to come over here to participate in the discussion. Hopefully we’ll all learn something from the dialogue.

  18. Wally said

    I had to look deep to find the controversial part. Is it the PC argument that women cannot be trusted with their own anatomy ?

  19. chris said

    Why isn’t Charlie the victim and Charlotte the rapist?

    Charlie was also too drunk to give informed consent correct?

    Or is it only rape if the “victim” feels bad about it???

    If that is the case, I have been raped many, many times where I was too drunk to know better and felt like crap the next day for sleeping with someone so damn ugly…

    • You know man, you just outed yourself as that weird guy that gets drunk and goes after the ugly chicks.


      • Brad K. said

        Stuart the Viking,

        It isn’t like they wrote songs about the girls get “prettier” at Closing Time, whatever that means. Wait. Um, . . Mickey Gilley, wasn’t it?

        You know, regretting knowing or interacting with someone because they aren’t “pretty” is pretty reprehensible behavior. Most anyone with a smile is attractive, and there are more reasons to enjoy someone’s company than their life-skill at attracting sexual attention in public. In fact one’s ability to become a worthwhile mate seems to be hampered by devoting skill, time, and energy, to attracting sexual attention in public.

  20. Old NFO said

    I think they are both victims of their own stupidity… Personal responsibility ‘should’ keep either males or females from doing stupid things, but that doesn’t always happen. In today’s PC world, it has become almost automatic that the male is the perp, regardless of the situation.

    As much as I hate to say it, the ‘guilt trip’ card gets played way too often as a way out of an unplanned encounter, especially of a sexual nature.

    Look at the disparity between female teachers that rape underage male students and male teachers that rape underage female students. The women get off lightly, while the males get thrown UNDER the jail!

  21. Brad K. said


    There are a number of reasons for this type of law. The recent cause is the “date rape” drug, which makes a victim interested in sex, an also blurs or deletes the memory of the period under the influence of the drug. Thus, a brand new class of sexual exploitation; the law leaned in existing laws of statutory rape, where the law holds that rape occurred despite intended consent of the parties, because the statutory rape victim is younger than the age of consent, and can thus not provide (her) own consent to sexual contact.

    Getting a woman drunk to ease your way into her . . affections, including past social or moral objections, is a historical practice, and again is deliberate sexual exploitation.

    During the days of arranged marriages, when significant sums of money changed hands for a bride free of STDs (that is, chaste and never exposed to any sexual contact, thus never exposed to sexually transmitted diseases). Also, some faiths believe sex is reserved to the marriage bed, thus any sexual contact outside of couples married to each other in the eyes of the Church and God and everyone – is a sin. A mortal sin, according to the Old Testament of the Bible, at least adultery is supposed to be. “Run both through with the same javelin” is the phrase from Genesis that comes to me. Thus any woman exploited sexually outside marriage – such as statutory rape – is considered against God’s law, thus it was codified into US law as well. Fornication, sex between people not married to each other, is still against the law in some states, though, like laws forbidding adultery, they are seldom enforced – which tells you what the “Save the Family” wackoes believe, when you watch their actions instead of listening to their words.

    I recall an apalling article on rape from October 1981. I don’t remember much of the article, I haven’t been able to find it since, I think it was a paper in Psychology Today. “Rape is society’s way of putting a woman in her place.” Apalling, as I said. Feminists and others have been very active to defuse this de facto atrocity that links a woman’s value and a defined “place” in the home and society, which is common in most patriarchal societies. When women are treated as possessions under the law, and their sexual contacts a matter of financial and social worth, then criminals that offend the men responsible for that woman’s worth commit a great crime. Rape. That aspect, more historical in the US than in some countries, still provides a pressure to dissuade rape and unintended sexual contacts. Please don’t shoot me; I find the statement appalling, yet I don’t find it completely misses the mark. How many rapes have been committed because “she asked for it” by being where some rapist decided she was “available”? I think most of US society would agree that this is a horrible observation of society. Yet the defenses against rape include: Don’t walk in dark alleys or streets; Stick to crowds at night; Walk tall and confident, and without fear. That is, many rapists hang out looking for trouble in unsafe locations – keep to safe places. Thus the statement above is an observation of how behavior works, and not advice that one passes on to their children, it isn’t written down anywhere, no one sets out to “follow” that “rule”. But.

    I believe this type of law was written solely to deal with the incident where a guy deliberately gets a lady drunk or under the influence of something that changes her ability to resist or decline, then exploits her helplessness. The fact that both might have consented to overindulge, and any sexual contact unintended by anyone sober that is present was never considered.


    I thought about the question again, about Charlie and Charlotte.

    The law you cite has two parts. If party A causes party B to become influenced by drugs or alcohol or other means; And, if party A then exploits party B sexually; Then – there is a rape, a criminal complaint against party A.

    With Charles and Charlotte, I can see either of two answers. 1) They are served the alcohol, their behavior devolves into sexual contact. Then the one administering the alcohol – serving the booze – caused Charlotte to be intoxicated, and Charles, to. Since there was sexual contact as well as chemically-affected ability to consent – the bartended raped both Charles and Charlotte, by proxy. This would be consistent with tavern-keeper laws holding someone responsible when they serve someone appearing intoxicated, who then while intoxicated commits a crime.

    Or, 2) This law does not apply. It isn’t shown that Charles got Charotte inebriated intentionally. Since no one got her intoxicated in order to affect her reason and ability to consent (or decline) imminent sexual contact, then intended sexual contact isn’t the cause of the intoxication. Since there are no competent witnesses (that is, with ability to judge, consent, or interrupt) present, and Charlotte’s recollection appears to be absent due to her own choices, then although there was sexual contact, it might not be rape. There are other laws about what is and is not rape, something else might apply.

  22. john b said

    Not the reason I stopped drinking, but a good one nonetheless.

    Plus in situations like that, the fact that I was neither Fabio, or Donald Trump, was held against me the next day. The most physically perfect woman I had ever seen, on waking up next to me said, “I MUST have been drugged. There’s NO WAY I’d willingly sleep with someone like you.” Before she left I was ready to file rape charges against her.

  23. […] Here it is. […]

  24. […] has a question on her blog that’s drawing a fair amount of […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: