Ohio rape case...a slippery slope?

[eflatminor]

You've probably all heard about the Ohio juveniles convicted of raping a young woman too intoxicated to give consent. If not, the story is here:

Two teens found guilty in Steubenville rape case - CNN.com

While I think it was MONUMENTALLY stupid of those boys to take pictures of the drunk girl and post them on the internet, I must admit, at the risk of sounding cold, I'm not sure I support the rape conviction.

I don't want to "blame" the victim but on the other hand, nobody forced her to drink herself into oblivion. That was her choice, one that any one knows can lead to unintended and negative consequences. But that's not really my point.

My point is that while these boys, who were also drunk, messed with this girl (no penile penetration), I'm not sure I'd call it rape. While the girl never "consented" to relations, nor did she protest or ever utter a "no" or "stop".

My concern is about the NEXT time two drunks kids have at it. Have we come to a point where the girl can now claim rape because she never gave explicit consent? That's going to result in a lot of innocent boys branded for life as a pervert and that's wrong.

I say if you get so drunk you are unable to voice opposition to another horny teenager fingering your girly parts, you should probably focus on drinking less and not the actions of the drunk boy, all of whom deal with raging testosterone. Of course it's rape if the girl says 'no' but now it's rape if the girl doesn't say 'yes'? What next, signed consent before any sexual relations?!

I don't know, if it was my boy that did that, I'd punish him for sure, but I don't see imposing what is effectively a lifetime sentence of 'sex offender' that will ensure he never gets a good job or any opportunity for advancement. It just doesn't seem right to me. If it was my daughter, I wouldn't allow her to blame the boys. I'd reprimand her for being so damn irresponsible in the first place.

What say you? Am I off base here? I admit to not have a well formed opinion on this one. It just doesn't feel right to me.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I don't understand why in all other cases, driving, getting into a fight, spending money, being drunk does not excuse or remove you from your responsibilities, yet women can use this excuse to claim that they were raped.

I am not talking about being passed out drunk, that is obvious, but when a woman is drunk the law gives her the option to claim that she was too drunk to make the decision to have sex, but the man, who may be just as drunk, is held liable not only for having sex, but is guilty of having raped her.

 

[Katzndogz]

You are off, on many different levels. The boys' actions were indefensible. Someone being unconscious is not a license to rape her, or piss on her, nor laugh about her being dead.

A lifetime sentence as a sex offender is too lenient. It is not enough of a deterrent to keep other boys from just having fun at someone else's expense.

 

[Freemason9]

I don't understand why in all other cases, driving, getting into a fight, spending money, being drunk does not excuse or remove you from your responsibilities, yet women can use this excuse to claim that they were raped.

I am not talking about being passed out drunk, that is obvious, but when a woman is drunk the law gives her the option to claim that she was too drunk to make the decision to have sex, but the man, who may be just as drunk, is held liable not only for having sex, but is guilty of having raped her.

When a woman--a young woman, especially--is in such a state, she is subject to predators. It is the responsibility of people in her company to protect her.

Period.

And those mother fuckers were predators.

 

[Freemason9]

You are off, on many different levels. The boys' actions were indefensible. Someone being unconscious is not a license to rape her, or piss on her, nor laugh about her being dead.

A lifetime sentence as a sex offender is too lenient. It is not enough of a deterrent to keep other boys from just having fun at someone else's expense.

And I STRONGLY disagree with this. Those boys were young and stupid. A life sentence? No way. Hell, a 6-month stint in county lockup and the conviction record itself is enough to ruin their lives for years to come.

 

[Katzndogz]

I don't understand why in all other cases, driving, getting into a fight, spending money, being drunk does not excuse or remove you from your responsibilities, yet women can use this excuse to claim that they were raped.

I am not talking about being passed out drunk, that is obvious, but when a woman is drunk the law gives her the option to claim that she was too drunk to make the decision to have sex, but the man, who may be just as drunk, is held liable not only for having sex, but is guilty of having raped her.

Because you are wrong. It doesn't matter that she was too drunk to make the decision to have sex. She was unconscious and did not give consent to have sex. Lack of consent is rape, it might be digital rape or rape with a foreign object but it's still rape.

The law makes an assumption. The assumption could be that anyone who is unconscious has given consent to have sex or the assumption is that an unconscious person has not given consent to have sex.

Which would you prefer?

A woman too drunk to say no, is too drunk to say yes.

 

[eflatminor]

You are off, on many different levels. The boys' actions were indefensible. Someone being unconscious is not a license to rape her, or piss on her, nor laugh about her being dead.

A lifetime sentence as a sex offender is too lenient. It is not enough of a deterrent to keep other boys from just having fun at someone else's expense.

There is no evidence she was unconscious at the time the boy touched her with his finger.

Nobody got pissed on.

Laughing at someone should NEVER be against the law.

In any case, you didn't address the point. Are we now going to say that if a woman doesn't give specific consent to sex, her partner is guilty of rape?

I just don't buy it.

 

[Katzndogz]

You are off, on many different levels. The boys' actions were indefensible. Someone being unconscious is not a license to rape her, or piss on her, nor laugh about her being dead.

A lifetime sentence as a sex offender is too lenient. It is not enough of a deterrent to keep other boys from just having fun at someone else's expense.

And I STRONGLY disagree with this. Those boys were young and stupid. A life sentence? No way. Hell, a 6-month stint in county lockup and the conviction record itself is enough to ruin their lives for years to come.

Being stupid is sometimes a capital offense. They weren't stupid, they were having fun and used to having fun without consequences. Now they have consequences. A very light incarceration sentence, one year for one and two years for the other. A lifetime of sex offender registry. It is far less than they deserve just so that they understand that having fun isn't the license they thought it was.

 

[eflatminor]

I don't understand why in all other cases, driving, getting into a fight, spending money, being drunk does not excuse or remove you from your responsibilities, yet women can use this excuse to claim that they were raped.

I am not talking about being passed out drunk, that is obvious, but when a woman is drunk the law gives her the option to claim that she was too drunk to make the decision to have sex, but the man, who may be just as drunk, is held liable not only for having sex, but is guilty of having raped her.

When a woman--a young woman, especially--is in such a state, she is subject to predators. It is the responsibility of people in her company to protect her.

Period.

And those mother fuckers were predators.

That's an argument to convict the other party goers that had nothing to do with what happened. I don't buy that either.

But again, how do you feel about the idea that a woman must give specific consent and if not, she's been raped. Surely when you were a drunk teenager fooling around with a girl, she didn't give consent. She just didn't say "no".

I can't see a rape conviction because the girl made the choice to drink herself beyond the point of being able to say 'stop'.

 

[OriginalShroom]

I don't understand why in all other cases, driving, getting into a fight, spending money, being drunk does not excuse or remove you from your responsibilities, yet women can use this excuse to claim that they were raped.

I am not talking about being passed out drunk, that is obvious, but when a woman is drunk the law gives her the option to claim that she was too drunk to make the decision to have sex, but the man, who may be just as drunk, is held liable not only for having sex, but is guilty of having raped her.

Because you are wrong. It doesn't matter that she was too drunk to make the decision to have sex. She was unconscious and did not give consent to have sex. Lack of consent is rape, it might be digital rape or rape with a foreign object but it's still rape.

The law makes an assumption. The assumption could be that anyone who is unconscious has given consent to have sex or the assumption is that an unconscious person has not given consent to have sex.

Which would you prefer?

A woman too drunk to say no, is too drunk to say yes.

Let me restate this again... Just incase you missed it.

If a woman, or a man, is so drunk that they are passed out, and they are molested, it should be illegal. Plain and simple.

HOWEVER.. Let's put it this way.. Would you say that "straight" man who, while drunk, "Consented" to homosexual sex and later regretted it because his wife/girlfriend/Frat brothers/Employer/Co-workers found out about it was raped by the gay man because he was too drunk to make a decision?

 

[gallantwarrior]

A slippery slope, indeed.
Understanding the story, this girl apparently had no ability to utter much of anything, given her alleged state of extreme inebriation. She made a (really) stupid mistake, for which she will pay for the rest of her life. We cannot know what further repercussions her poor choice and the subsequent public circus may bring later in her life. So she pays, as will the boys who should never be excused for their poor choice.
As a matter-of-fact, it would seem that some young people are taking "justice" into their own hands and are issuing threats against the victim of this crime. The entire community that has spawned such reprehensible sub-human behavior screams loudly of a failure on a larger scale.

Teen Girls Charged for Allegedly Threatening Steubenville, Ohio, Rape Victim | ABC News - Yahoo!

 

[Katzndogz]

You are off, on many different levels. The boys' actions were indefensible. Someone being unconscious is not a license to rape her, or piss on her, nor laugh about her being dead.

A lifetime sentence as a sex offender is too lenient. It is not enough of a deterrent to keep other boys from just having fun at someone else's expense.

There is no evidence she was unconscious at the time the boy touched her with his finger.

Nobody got pissed on.

Laughing at someone should NEVER be against the law.

In any case, you didn't address the point. Are we now going to say that if a woman doesn't give specific consent to sex, her partner is guilty of rape?

I just don't buy it.

Not only did these boys urinate on her, but they took her unconscious body to another party to be abused there.

To answer your specific point, if a woman does not give specific consent to sex her partner is guilty of rape. If there is any ambiguity, don't have sex.

Is it rape to have sex with a woman in a coma? Is it rape to have sex with an unconscious woman at an accident site? Is it rape to have sex with a woman that's sedated? If some other man gives a woman a roofie and she's unconscious is it rape because the second rapist didn't give her the roofie?

If there is a question as to whether a woman that is unconscious gave consent, she didn't.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

Ohio rape case...a slippery slope?

You've probably all heard about the Ohio juveniles convicted of raping a young woman too intoxicated to give consent.

I don't know, if it was my boy that did that, I'd punish him for sure, but I don't see imposing what is effectively a lifetime sentence of 'sex offender' that will ensure he never gets a good job or any opportunity for advancement. It just doesn't seem right to me. If it was my daughter, I wouldn't allow her to blame the boys. I'd reprimand her for being so damn irresponsible in the first place.

You're fishin' for support, huh??


[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p3h9tJoEU-E]Onion Story Predicts Steubenville Rape Coverage - YouTube[/ame]​

 

[Zona]

Op. If your son did it, you would chastise him. Maybe a week's punishment? If it were your daughter laying there passed out being fingered, pissed on and taped, you would not go for rape charges? Of course the girl.didn't consent or say no......she was fucking passed out. How can you not get this? If a woman is in a coma, anyone can come by and finger her? Damn.

 

[eflatminor]

You are off, on many different levels. The boys' actions were indefensible. Someone being unconscious is not a license to rape her, or piss on her, nor laugh about her being dead.

A lifetime sentence as a sex offender is too lenient. It is not enough of a deterrent to keep other boys from just having fun at someone else's expense.

There is no evidence she was unconscious at the time the boy touched her with his finger.

Nobody got pissed on.

Laughing at someone should NEVER be against the law.

In any case, you didn't address the point. Are we now going to say that if a woman doesn't give specific consent to sex, her partner is guilty of rape?

I just don't buy it.

Not only did these boys urinate on her, but they took her unconscious body to another party to be abused there.

I did not know that. If true, that is indeed going too far.

To answer your specific point, if a woman does not give specific consent to sex her partner is guilty of rape.

That's scary on it's face. I'm SURE you are therefore guilty of rape. Don't tell us you never, as a teenager, felt up a girl that had not specifically said "Yes, I want you to feel me up".

Anyway, I appreciate the insight. It sounds like the boys were worse in their actions than I had previously thought.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I don't understand why in all other cases, driving, getting into a fight, spending money, being drunk does not excuse or remove you from your responsibilities, yet women can use this excuse to claim that they were raped.

I am not talking about being passed out drunk, that is obvious, but when a woman is drunk the law gives her the option to claim that she was too drunk to make the decision to have sex, but the man, who may be just as drunk, is held liable not only for having sex, but is guilty of having raped her.

Because you are wrong. It doesn't matter that she was too drunk to make the decision to have sex. She was unconscious and did not give consent to have sex. Lack of consent is rape, it might be digital rape or rape with a foreign object but it's still rape.

The law makes an assumption. The assumption could be that anyone who is unconscious has given consent to have sex or the assumption is that an unconscious person has not given consent to have sex.

Which would you prefer?

A woman too drunk to say no, is too drunk to say yes.

Let me restate this again... Just incase you missed it.

If a woman, or a man, is so drunk that they are passed out, and they are molested, it should be illegal. Plain and simple.

HOWEVER.. Let's put it this way.. Would you say that "straight" man who, while drunk, "Consented" to homosexual sex and later regretted it because his wife/girlfriend/Frat brothers/Employer/Co-workers found out about it was raped by the gay man because he was too drunk to make a decision?

No.....that'd make you.....uhhhhh him....Gay.

​

 

[Katzndogz]

The girl did not blame the boys. She was unconscious. She didn't know what happened. It was not until the boys posted the video on You Tube and boasted about what they had done that anyone knew that such a horrific crime had occurred.

 

[eflatminor]

If it were your daughter laying there passed out being fingered, pissed on and taped, you would not go for rape charges?

No, I would get her help for her drinking problem.

Of course the girl.didn't consent or say no......she was fucking passed out. How can you not get this? If a woman is in a coma, anyone can come by and finger her? Damn.

I had read she was not actually unconscious when she mess around with the boys. If I'm wrong about that, mea culpa. I would not support the idea of sex with an unconscious person.

 

[Freemason9]

I don't understand why in all other cases, driving, getting into a fight, spending money, being drunk does not excuse or remove you from your responsibilities, yet women can use this excuse to claim that they were raped.

I am not talking about being passed out drunk, that is obvious, but when a woman is drunk the law gives her the option to claim that she was too drunk to make the decision to have sex, but the man, who may be just as drunk, is held liable not only for having sex, but is guilty of having raped her.

When a woman--a young woman, especially--is in such a state, she is subject to predators. It is the responsibility of people in her company to protect her.

Period.

And those mother fuckers were predators.

That's an argument to convict the other party goers that had nothing to do with what happened. I don't buy that either.

But again, how do you feel about the idea that a woman must give specific consent and if not, she's been raped. Surely when you were a drunk teenager fooling around with a girl, she didn't give consent. She just didn't say "no".

I can't see a rape conviction because the girl made the choice to drink herself beyond the point of being able to say 'stop'.

First of all . . . would you say the same thing if this was your daughter?

Secondly, I think we seriously need to have this discussion with our young people. Taking sexual advantage of any intoxicated person is wrong--we can argue about degrees, but an underage person makes this impossibly wrong.

Thirdly, "onlookers" are always responsible for doing the right thing. ALWAYS.

 

[Katzndogz]

There is no evidence she was unconscious at the time the boy touched her with his finger.

Nobody got pissed on.

Laughing at someone should NEVER be against the law.

In any case, you didn't address the point. Are we now going to say that if a woman doesn't give specific consent to sex, her partner is guilty of rape?

I just don't buy it.

Not only did these boys urinate on her, but they took her unconscious body to another party to be abused there.

I did not know that. If true, that is indeed going too far.

To answer your specific point, if a woman does not give specific consent to sex her partner is guilty of rape.

That's scary on it's face. I'm SURE you are therefore guilty of rape. Don't tell us you never, as a teenager, felt up a girl that had not specifically said "Yes, I want you to feel me up".

Anyway, I appreciate the insight. It sounds like the boys were worse in their actions than I had previously thought.

I have never in my entire life felt up a girl. Not once, not even close.