<p>what about cases where the girl is so inebriated, she is not passed out but did not say no?</p>
<p>What about them? In most states, the law states that inebriated people are incapable of giving affirmative consent. (If you don’t like the law, work to change it, but that’s what it says.) This is simply a matter of legal culpability, and since there are various degrees of forcible rape, rape, and sexual assault, prosecutors can callibrate the degree of offense (or charge at a higher degree in order to promote a plea agreement.)</p>
<p>^Why would the male assume she “wanted him?” He is the one penetrating her, he better be sure she is ok with that. If the girl is as inebriated as you say, she would be unable to give consent. If the male continued with the act anyway he would be taking advantage of the situation and asserting his power over her.</p>
<p>because she went back to his room/apartment with him or invited him back?</p>
<p>mini, I would be interested in seeing the actual questions used in the Williams study. Do you know if they are available?</p>
<p>BTW, it is well worth reading the abstract of the other cited study:</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>The other studies cited on that page are also fascinating, and many touch upon topics that have been introduced here. For example, there is one regarding “female flashing,” which I gather refers to “girls gone wild” type behavior. They conclude that such behavior tends to reinforce the hegemony of male sexuality and female objectification, rather than some idea of female sexual empowerment.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>I’m not sure what you’re point is. Are you implying that going to a guys room/apartment is consenting to sex?</p>
<p>You can read whatever you want into it. I am trying to figure out where the power comes into play.</p>
<p>Assume they went out on a date, got drunk and chose to go one way or the other instead going their separate ways if it makes it more clearer.</p>
<p>if we want to go a bit further - add another case. they have had a physical relation before.</p>
<p>Let’s say they are just friends and there have been a “few benefits” in the past. I think that makes it sufficiently murky. Because they are friends, the girl agrees to go to the guys apartment to watch a movie/listen to music…whatever. At the apartment the girl gets so intoxicated that she is unable to consent to anything. And just for fun, let’s say she was just diagnosed with a venereal disease the day before.</p>
<p>The guy assumes she must have given consent, she went to his apartment after all! He becomes infected with the venereal disease. Does he have a legal claim against her?</p>
<p>Lima and Texas, if she was unable to consent, its all on him. Having sex once or even more than once is not a license for sex in the future.</p>
<p>“I think that makes it sufficiently murky.”</p>
<p>This is what I am going for. there is not always power involved even when a claim of rape might be involved.</p>
<p>There is a lot of moralizing going on this thread and how the law works. If the law works the way the people seem to think it does, about 10% of the male population in the country should be locked away. </p>
<p>Interestingly enough, juries don’t seem to understand that law as portrayed on this thread and they let too many men get away with the “mutual consent” plea?</p>
<p>Tex, maybe you are assuming power means violence. Here is a definition</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>If a male penetrates a woman without her consent he is the one that has the power.</p>
<p>Sorry, texaspg, I deleted the message you are referring to. But if I’d known you would ask that question, I wouldn’t have deleted my message.</p>
<p>Briefly, I said that consent is affirmative, and the default is that someone does not consent to sex. I listed some things that don’t constitute consent to sex: going to someone’s apartment, sitting down, sitting on their bed in their dorm room, drinking. </p>
<p>Can you possibly be serious in even wondering whether the default is that people don’t consent? Do you seriously think you can walk down the street, and anyone can grab you and rape you with impunity if you aren’t quick enough in saying no? Do you imagine women agree to sex, except for those few people they don’t want to have sex with? For cryin’ out loud, what are you thinking here?</p>
<p>[On edit: and now texaspg deleted his/her message. But it asked where in the law it said that lack of consent is the default.]</p>
<p>Looks like Tex deleted that ridiculous statement. But, yah Tex, lack of consent is in every rape law.</p>
<p>why is it ridiculous? lack of consent is not construed as a non-statement but a NO is construed definitely as non-consent.</p>
<p>“can grab you and rape you with impunity if you aren’t quick enough in saying no?”</p>
<p>we have gone way past this case. I have already defined my strawman as two people who went out on a date, got drunk, decided to go further with their date in one of their rooms and have had a relation in the past.</p>
<p>Uhm, I think you had it the other way around in the post you deleted. You asked to see where it was written in any rape laws that lack of consent was a problem.</p>
<p>texaspg, I take your car. You go to the police and say, Fang stole my car! And I, using your logic, say, “What’s the problem? He didn’t say I <em>couldn’t</em> take his car.”</p>
<p>The police won’t buy it. You’ll get your car back and I’ll get a Grand Theft Auto charge.</p>
<p>And if I try, “One time at work he lent me his car to run an errand for the boss, so I figured I could have it any time I wanted,” the police still won’t buy it and I’ll still end up in front of a frowning judge.</p>
<p>Tex, now your changing your story again. </p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Now you’re saying the two people decided to go further? Where was that in the original scenario–I think you wrote she went back to his room. You said she was too intoxicated to give consent? </p>
<p>The fault with your logic is that your original premise is incorrect. Going to a guys room is not giving consent for sex. Maybe you think it is a bad idea, blah blah blah, but it won’t hold up in a court of law.</p>
<p>cardinal - Hope you understand what you are saying since i dont have a clue. </p>
<p>lima - you asked me further questions and we have gone past that where you built a case for VD?</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>It’s pretty simple, really. No means No. In every case. If they’ve had sex a hundred times before, and if she says No on the 101st time, and he forces himself on her anyway, that’s rape.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Yes with an explanation. I think men are more likely to want to have sex with young women who are attractive to them. Duh. I don’t think that translates into men are more likely to rape women who are sexy, which is what you seem to think. </p>
<p>I can’t give you a citation, but more than three quarters of female college students who are sexually assaulted are freshmen or first semester sophomores. I doubt juniors and seniors are less sexy or dress more modestly. This is about vulnerability. When a pack of wolves hunt, they seek out the most vulnerable animals, especially those on their own, and bring them down. Human sexual predators are the same. </p>
<p>The U of Montana calls the first six weeks of the school year the “Red Zone” because the majority of campus sexual assaults occur within those first six weeks.</p>
<p>Alcohol has a lot to do with this. Freshmen drink–often for the first time. They don’t know their limitations yet and it makes them vulnerable. </p>
<p>But it’s also just that a lot of freshmen girls don’t have the college equivalent of “street smarts.” As they develop them, they become less vulnerable. Another part of this is that freshmen don’t have strong friendships yet. A group of girls in a dorm will all go to the party together…but they don’t agree they all will come back together. So, when that girl gets a little drunk and gets cut off from everyone she knows the wolves start circling. An upper class female is more likely to have good friends who notice what’s happening and intervene to preserve her safety. </p>
<p>Another important factor is that freshman girls have less confidence and are therefore more likely to ignore that little warning bell or gut instinct that tells them that something here is just not right. When that upper class guy invites him to her room, she’s less likely to say no. (Now, obviously, not every guy who invites a girl to his room intends to rape her. But the guy who does want to rape her–though he wouldn’t use that term–wants to get her away from other people.) Their friends are the same. A freshmen’s girls friends, even if she has them, won’t recognize that letting a friend “sleep it off” in a frat bedroom or other isolated room is NOT a good idea. They’ll let the male who volunteers to see that their friend gets home “safely” go off alone with her. The upper class women will thank him for his help, but INSIST on going with them, no matter how much he says it’s “not necessary.” </p>
<p>Some of the guys who rape–especially in the “murky” situations, have also been drinking. Ever hear of “beer goggles?” Many people are less discriminating about attractiveness when drunk. Heck, that’s the case when there’s no rape or anything close to it. A guy gets a girl’s phone number and runs into her a couple of days later. "I thought she was good looking. Boy, I must have been drunker than I thought!</p>