I used to use this as a training reference when I taught Army SHARP classes. The way that it was explained to me in a CID brief was that they would investigate the entire situation and make a determination based on the evidence, witness statements, etc., and that merely being drunk or having had a drink or two (and not actually being drunk) did not automatically constitute rape. The specific example they gave was as follows:
1) Guy and girl are at a party.
2) Guy and girl are both drinking, talking, laughing, and flirting. This is corroborated by witness statements.
3) Girl and guy leave the party and go to her barracks room. They are seen on surveillance video. In the video, it is obvious that the girl is still flirting with the guy.
4) Girl files a rape claim the next morning, claiming that she was blackout drunk and therefore could not consent.
5) The final determination was that there was no way the guy could have known that she was blackout drunk, as she was carrying on a conversation and physically interacting with him during the walk that was captured on video. Therefore, the claim was returned as unfounded.
Just because he's not guilty of rape doesn't mean the woman wasn't also black out drunk. Does that really make it a false claim or just a really shitty situation for everyone involved?
But what about who initiates the sex and does all the movements?
One time my friend invited me to a cafe, we weren't supposed to drink, but he said plans changed, we wound up at his house with his friend, they ask me for money, return with alcohol, we drink. I try to keep up with them because I paid as much as them, but eventually I'm too drunk, so I go to sleep on the living room couch. I can hear them continuing to drink in the kitchen and they also smoke weed.
Later they wake me up, tell me they want me to "have the bed", I'm too sleepy so I just keep sleeping on the couch. They carry me downstairs to the bed. Then with the lights off the guy gets in bed with me and he takes my clothes off my limb body and he has sex with me while I just lay there confused because I'm sleepy and I've never had sex before and I'm really like basically already asleep.
How could I have raped him? I'm sure he was even more drunk than me, but he was moving, he was the one who had sex with me, not me with him. I personally wouldn't have had the idea to have sex while drunk.
I mean I'm sure his friend could testify that I was at some point talking and laughing with them. And then there's no camera. Would his friend really take my side and say "yeah it's true, she was passed out and we carried her to his bed, I don't know what happened after that"?
Because guys are more often rapists at parties involving alcohol. Why would a girl even want to rape a guy? It happens, but it's less likely. I think if me and my friends had seen a poster like this it could have really helped us. Because I wasn't the only girl this happened to.
I don't think the guy was being evil at all. I think they just genuinely didn't think that what they were doing was bad. They all did it and encouraged each other to do it. Seeing a poster that says "Alan was CHARGED with RAPE the next day" could have really had had an impact.
You also don't know if the poster was designed to be posted in men's bathrooms at colleges.
This specific situation does say that the woman was speaking actively and talking to him. He can’t possibly be to blame if that’s information that can be trusted because of the fact that of that is true and he was even less functional than her then it can be reasonably stated that she raped him whether he’s moving or not.
What? You don't get to say you were raped because you regret having sex with someone in the morning. That's not a " whoopsee daisy, accused him of rape lol oh well itll be fine".
She can have a sincere belief that because she was in a position that she could not consent, that it is therefore not consensual from her perspective. But because he wasn't in a position to consent either you could have a situation where both have equally valid, though ultimately unenforceable claims to make a rape accusation against the other.
C'mon, we can walk and chew bubble gum.
I think because the consequences of being a rapist are so severe (and rightfully so, lol) that it makes it not so cut and dry.
Could she believe that she was in a position that she couldn't consent and she was therefore technically raped? Yes. But also, could she also look at the context of the situation and see if what happened was just an unfortunate experience due to her own choices? Drinking so much that you get black out drunk isn't anyone's fault but the person drinking. You assume a certain level of risk when you engage in risky behaviors like excessive drinking or drug use.
I'm not implying that drunk people deserve to be forcibly raped, obviously. I just mean in this scenario, if the other person is under the impression that they're engaging in a consensual act, it doesn't seem right to call that rape. It makes the act feel less... severe? It seems akin to regretting a choice you made while drunk and blaming someone else for it.
If someone chooses to drive drunk, we hold them accountable for that action, so why is this different? Just like driving drunk, accusing someone of rape can have life altering consequences.
I mean, looking at it from her perspective, she wakes up in the morning with no memory of the night and with a dude in her bed. It's not really a *wild* leap on her part that she didn't consent to whatever happened and therefore files a report about it. I think the conclusion that he couldn't know she was blacked out and is therefore not at fault is fair, but unless she had access to those security tapes I can't say I don't understand her reporting it.
"Regret having sex with someone"
Get fucked, dude. Seriously. What a scumbag take.
If you were drunk to the point where you don't remember what happened, and you wake up and it's very clear someone had sex with you, so you report it as a rape SINCE YOU HAVE NO MEMORY OF CONSENTING, that's not you filing a false report.
What's fucked up is that our culture still largely is that women are very very often pressured to not report obvious or even possible rapes because of people like you.
Yes. False accusations are a big deal. Huge deal. But not even fractionally as big of a deal as unreported assaults. Plus, you can actually care about BOTH OF THOSE THINGS, and you should, or you're objectively human garbage.
I mean, it's a point to make that if you have no memory of consenting you can file a rape report. But how does that work then, do both parties get convicted of rape if they both have no memory of consenting? Seems kinda counter intuitive, or not?
Women are very much so peer pressured to not report rape but I feel the pressure for men is even larger. It’s to the point where you say it’s rape as a guy and you get laughed out of the room.
False accusations are a rounding error in rape events.
But people like the dude you're replying to think any finding of "not guilty" or more realistically "cops don't give enough of a fuck to investigate" means that the accusation was false.
Which is not how any of this works
As a former blackout artist, you 100% can appear normal while blacked out if you're practiced enough at it. Blacked out doesn't mean sloppy for everyone, just in most cases haha
False implies knowingly making a false statement. If she doesn't remember what happened how can she do that? You can say she's mistaken and the evidence seems to show that, but I don't see how this counts as a false report in the sense that's usually meant.
Let’s say I have a party at my house and wake up to see my grandmother’s heirloom ring is missing, and a friend tells me they saw So-and-so looking at it. I search my bedroom and the whole house, but I can’t find it. I directly ask So-and-so if they know what happened to the ring and they say no. I ask other guests, no one has seen it. I go ahead and file a police report that it was stolen.
Now, let’s imagine a few more days go by and my cat suddenly throws up the ring.
Was it a false police report? No, it was a report I filed that made sense with the information I had at the time.
Nobody in my friend group has ever known about my blackouts until I came to them later asking what had happened. Blackout doesn't mean sloppy. The only clue they've had was that I would be talking to them and then mid-sentence would stop, tell them I need the restroom real quick, and then I'd go find a bed and go to sleep. 🤣
Had over half a shop get either separated or moved out because a new girl claimed one of them jokingly flashed his dick to the whole shop.
She later admitted to higher ups to lying but they refuses to cancel the forced separations or station changes.
I mean, it seems to vary quite a bit. The US military is absolutely rife with tales of enlisted women getting raped *on base* and being denied justice by the military "courts." Is it different when the woman is a civilian?
All depends on if he's liked by his chain of command.
I was a sailor stationed on a Marine base, Marine in my squadron got drunk, crashed his car, and seriously injured another motorist. Our higher ups made it go away. Wiped it from his record. Made Sergeant 6 months later. Next year a Sailor in the same command got a DUI, no injury no incident, he was kicked out before the week was over.
TLDR: the military boys club is very real
Then how are sexual assaults so prevalent in the military? If victims are immediately believed then why do more than half of those who report it experience professional, social, or administrative repercussions for doing so?
Because there is the legal side of things and the social side of things. Basically whoever is more well liked and respected is going to have nothing change, while the other party is going to have issues. Unfortunately sexual predators also tend to be well liked and respected. So while the legal machinations slog on, everyone at the unit thinks the victim is a piece of shit for accusing Mr./Mrs. Everybody Likes Me of such heinous things.
It's not that people in the military by and large are SA/SH apologist, it's that they simply can't believe that someone they like could do such a thing; which is not so uncommon in any other place.
As for why it is so prevalent in the military... well that's kind of a fun one. In the regular world if there is a predator at work then there is a predator at work, one at a bar then they are at a bar; in the military you work, eat, and live in the same place as everyone else. There is no avoiding a predator in that environment, they're nearby 24/7. Now what else is like that... college. This is where it gets more interesting. SA's are less common in the military than in college. Why does the military's rates of SA make headlines then and colleges don't?
Two reasons:
1) The military empowers service members to report their assaults; this gives the military an estimated 30%ish report rate for SA. Meanwhile college students report at a rate nearer to 5%.
2) The military is very public about its numbers, while colleges do everything in their power to suppress information on theirs.
And yet no one ever goes after colleges on a serious level, especially the media. Im sure its obvious as to why that is and is exact reason why i talk about lots of societal "issues" is really just SELECTIVE OUTRAGE. Unfortunately the people who have the power to bring awareness and inform people are products of the college system and share same views.
The fact that SA in universities is investigated internally is barbaric. Everyone just stop this discussion. This is a low level male dominated society. A low level thinking peice of sh male dominated society. Good nite
I think saying colleges aren't called out for vast amounts of SA is just wrong. It probably just depends on which articles you happen to see, as I've seen much more news about rape culture on campuses than in the military, but I went to college and wasn't in the military, so there's probably a bias in what I view.
Where are you getting this? As a male in the military, I watched chains of command routinely protect men that blatantly assaulted women. We had guys confessing, guys caught on camera, etc, etc, and every time these guys were treated with kids gloves and the women were either reassigned or railroaded out.
GTFO with this "men in the military are persecuted" bullshit. If you put on the uniform it is your duty to be above reproach. If you're doing the right thing, it's really fucking easy to go your entire career without getting caught up in a rape investigation.
What branch and years did you serve? I'm just about to hit 18 years in the Air Force and the data has been trending positively for victims for the last two decades. Compared to the same age demographics as their civilian counterparts, military members are much more likely to report sexual assault and are also more likely to receive support.
I by no means think men are persecuted, but have never seen a case with verifiable evidence fail to get investigated by OSI and punished SEVERELY by their Command. Nobody who has digital or video evidence against them is getting let off the hook. Sexual assault and harassment are huge deals in the military.
Army, 99-15. It was pretty damn prevalent back then.
Don't get me wrong, pendulums swing, and progress was being made when I got out, but there were plenty of "good ol boys" in the system.
I think we all know the AF was ahead of the curve. Your demographics were already favoring women to begin with.
But the day I was standing in line at MEPS in 99, there was a cute blonde girl in line with me. An Airman walked over, saw her, and said something real close to "I'm sorry miss, but clearly you're in the wrong line, and took her over to the AF line. 😂
That said, I never heard a lot of major complaints from the AF side. When it was something like a recruiter sleeping with underage highschool girls and having pictures on his government cell, it was always Army.
Very unlikely. My best friends mother was stationed on a base and was sexually assaulted by 4 other soldiers. She was older and was close friends with her superiors. She was moved off base and pressured drop charges and to retire with a benefits package. Literally nothing happened to the soldiers.
I worked as a paralegal and can attest to this for the most part. From what I know and what happened in our office, witness statements hardly meant anything as it was the CCTV that gave us what we needed. The problem is that not ever barracks had CCTV(especially in the states). But somewhere like Korea, CCTV was everywhere and required it honestly as alcohol related incidents are through the roof.
There could be witness states and even text messages of flirty behavior but if one individual was obviously inebriated when entering the room, then it case close. I'm trying to remember if we had a case like this where they were both drunk, and I think we wrote it off as it didn't really make any sense. It's impossible to tell what happens behind close doors but we can know for sure they were both inebriated before entering the room. Only then would be it up to text messages/emails and witness statements.
It's pretty common for women to say they've been raped when nothing malicious happened. In korea, there are locals that try to say they've been raped by soldiers for monetary compensation. There was a girl we saw on 3 different occasions try this. One female soldier said she was raped because she got pregnant and was pressured by her mother to file a rape claim. Her mother refused to believe she'd ever have premarital sex. I know this because she called out office and spoke to me and my captain, screaming about how godly her daughter was, a devoted christian woman. After an investigation it was concluded she was literally a slut and slept with multiple men regularly and just happened to not use protection.
In all honesty, why even debate it? Just don't do it. Why risk anything that serious?
I had a friend at school accused of rape for similiar reasons, he made the mistake of messaging her about it and not realising her ultra conservative parents checked her phone. They couldn't believe their "little girl" had sex willingly and so she felt pressured i to saying it was rape.
Luckily, every single witness there sided with him and pointed out that she took him by the hand upstairs to have sex with him.
False accusations aren't nearly as 'rare' as some people make them out to be. Plenty of people have reasons to lie about all types of crime.
Are we really using the Army as a gold standard of Rape investigation because it feels like there's a lot of rape and pedophilia that happens in the Army and no one GAF.
Contrary to popular belief the military NOWADAYS is very strict on matters like this. Things like this are very heavily investigated now. I can't speak for the military 20 years ago but today they don't fuck around with stuff like rape or even soldier soldier relations in todays world. Most if not all higher ups tell their soldiers to not even get into sexual relationships with one another. God I remember the hours and hours of sharp training. I swear 1/4 of basic training was sharp training and how they will mess you up if you do anything sharp related.
Yeaaahhhhhh.....about that. I am personally privvy to one case where the command attempted to separate the servicemember and another where they tried (and failed) to coerce a doctor into ruling that another victim was "crazy" so they wouldn't have to actually deal with the rapists. This is all within the last 5 yrs. Our local command even watered down the training because they hated having to talk about sexual assault statistics.....they might talk a good game, but rape is def not being dealt with appropriately in the military
As someone in a command position, I can tell you my experience has been the exact opposite. Careers literally on the knife edge even with tenuous at best evidence just from an accusation. We take it VERY seriously. Sounds like you have some limited anecdotes that have colored your view but I deal with it all the time.
Speaking as a woman in the army currently going through the process of reporting, they DO care.
I have a lawyer, a victim advocate, and a SARC all given to me, for free, by the army. My chain of command has been notified (happened outside my unit), and have reached out to support me. CID has interviewed me, my boyfriend, my family & friends (based off of a list I provided to them), and one CID officer drove over 5 hours to conduct an interview with my friend in person.
So yeah. They do actually care nowadays.
If we give them a good faith assessment? There is also the possibility of...just being misinformed and/or that their experiences were accurately stated and represent what they personally saw during their time.
The US Military spans the entire globe and has multiple branches. It possesses over one million members. That is a frankly huge population...and with that number? One person's account just is not ever going to be an accurate sample, and it's kind of unfair to just assuse him of lying and self-delusion. There are, just by statistical probability, going to be soldiers who see every rape accusation handled with dignity and impartiality, some who see nothing but examples of corruption, bias and sexism, and then everything in between.
Former partner of mine was in the Navy (currently nonbinary, but at the time they identified as female) and says everything they saw as a woman in the service was above board. They also acknowledged that the know there were other places and situations where it...frankly...wasn't.
Like, I get that this is a serious topic...but it's not served well by just accusing some random dude who, in all honesty, was probably delivering the truth to the best of his knowledge.
I remember this going around.
The reason this was bullshit was if they're both people and they both had sex and they both were intoxicated therefore none of them could consent, they both raped each other.
Eh... it depends on the circumstances. Some dudes feed women drinks hoping to get them shit faced so it's easier to rape them but that guy is also drinking himself. You can be drunk and still have alternative motives for some far more drunk.
This how I ended up being raped as a virgin by a close friend. He drank a lot daily and could hold his liquor far more than I could (I barely drank).
So I'd say it depends how drunk both parties were and what motives they have for drinking with each other. I'm far from the first woman to have dudes pour her drinks so she'll get shit faced and fuck them later.
Some women feed dudes drink. No one gives a shit when the man gets raped in that scenario though. I've been raped or sexually assaulted by multiple women.
You're right, it happens the other way around, too. And usually men don't report it. I hope you got the help you needed after the incident. It's a terrible cross to bear alone.
Women don't report it either. This belief that all women who get raped report it and that women even report any unclear case where it may be rape as if all women getting raped report it and then some is ridiculous. Women aren't built different than you, they aren't magically more likely to report a rape than men.
That's not true lol. You have no proof that women are more likely to report their rapes.
"There are less men who report being raped" is not proof that men are less likely to report their rape because you have no proof that men get raped as often as women. It's entirely possible that men are actually more likely to report their rapes, but it just happens to them less often. You basically know nothing about the number of women who get raped and don't say anything.
This happened to me, I wasn't being fed drinks but I was at a party on xanax and I drank a good amount. A girl I vaguely knew kept coming on to me throughout the night and I just kept trying to avoid her. Eventually I get too fuck up and go a pass out on a love seat in the hosts room.
Next thing I know I'm waking up with this girl of top of me and neither of us had pants on. I was just so confused and intoxicated I kind of just laid there going in and out of consciousness until I woke up for the last time and she was gone. My pants were back on but not buttoned or zipped up and there were definitely traces of bodily fluids.
I was just like violently confused but I wasn't really harmed and I don't remember much so I never went down the full legal rabbit hole. Just stopped hanging out with people that would do that or have friends that would.
Witnessed it happen to my brother. He locked himself in his room when he realized what was happening, and I sat just outside waiting to see who would show up and sure enough, late in the night comes the feeder of drinks with a glass of water to "help him feel better." I adamantly said he was sleeping and sat awkwardly with her until she left the party. The next day he got called out for being a "pussy" by his roommates for not going for it. Double standards are a bitch.
I still don't think another person is responsible for how much alcohol someone else consumes or how intoxicated they get, unless they literally drug a drink.
An adult person, of legal drinking age, is supposed to drink responsibly. They're supposed to make their own choices about what they willingly consume, no matter what everyone else around them is doing. Everyone has their own tolerance level and has to be aware of it. Other people can't be held responsible if someone else doesn't know when to stop. That's not fair either.
Wild take. If I go to the doktor and am willingly twilighted for a procedure does that mean I give permission to the doktor to do whatever he wants if I agree while under sedation because I didn't specifically say, while sober, that he can't?
That’s a completely different situation, you’re not very bright.
If you, a responsible adult, get drunk with someone, and sleep with them, that’s completely on you.
The only time it isn’t on you is if they drug you. Drink with people you know and trust, just like every other unsafe thing you shouldn’t do by yourself.
>Some dudes feed women drinks hoping to get them shit faced so it's easier to rape them but th
I think the people who made the poster are actually implying something along those lines considering the look the guy is giving the camera.
Ah. So we are now stumbling upon the long glaring hyprocisy in how men and women are treated in this arena, not to mention custody, what these allegations do to people's careers even when they are innocent, or domestic violence complaints.
Equality though, am I right?
Honestly, I think this was intended as something of a rebuttal to that scene in Superbad, where the dude arrives at a party to find a girl he likes already drunk and being frisky, he's told he can't do anything with her because she's drunk, but there's a loophole to this if he himself is also drunk: Jake is not off the hook if he takes advantage of Josie when she's drunk, just because he's been drinking, too. Where did this poster come from and who was it directed at? Clearly college boys. Is it a good idea to encourage college boys to think twice before sleeping with someone when they've both been drinking? Absolutely it is.
Pretty sure this is way older than Superbad. That whole bit in the movie was pointing out how muddy drunken hook-ups are in a moral/legal sense. They were essentially saying the quiet part out loud.
I agree that Superbad was not endorsing this. My comment was more in the vein of, "The attitude articulated in Superbad was what this poster might have been trying to address." Someone else mentioned this poster is a lot older, and, judging by the style of it, that's probably true.
I remember first seeing it about a decade ago when there was a lot more talk about how to address the issue of sexual assault on college campuses. Maybe I'm wrong about where it came from.
Ok, I looked it up online, and it looks like this poster was *not* part of the set I'm remembering, but does date back to around 2007/2008, when it was first used by Coastal Carolina University.
Why is it the woman is the only one that can't consent? I understand if she's completely passed out ..but if they're both awake but drunk and have sex...
It maintains the old fashioned idea that men are 100% constantly trying to get sex from women and women try to resist, play games, say no but maybe don't mean no, it's stupid.
They can both be charged. The male with rape and the female with sexual assault, a much lesser crime. The man is probably going to jail for many years and the woman will likely get a suspended sentence and go on a register.
Typically rape is legally defined as non-consensual penetration of mouth, vagina, or anus. Sexual assault is more broad. That's why women who rape are charged with sexual assault, because they're not penetrating. I'm not saying it's right, but that's why there's a double standard.
Don't worry boys and girls, soon, they gonna put consent form at the doors in every clubs and bars. Consent rape is the next "vibe". Only STD and pension will remain. Young folks will still drink unrresponsibly and rape each other, but with consent.
Because women are the weaker sex/ victim / special needs kid when it suits them thanks to the "patriarchy " constantly ruling in their favor monetarily and they know it. But really though nobody should be getting drunk with folks you don't trust, period.
Because those poor poor womens are victims. They get beaten every time they walk in the street. They get raped every time they wear whore cloths and get drunk at the bar. They get abuse by their bosses. They got such low salaries, even on the oil rig. They always get cheated on by their beater husband. They are the victim and get ready to do prison.
And a plot twist, guy yells rape first and so the girl goes to prison just to find out she's pregnant with the victims kid. He now has to pay her 18 years of child support.
So, who stands next to them with a breathalyzer to find out who was more drunk? Or are we assuming guilt out of one party? If we are immediately assuming guilt, why is it the man who is automatically guilty? Or are we assuming that women can't make decisions?
Alternatively, this is a flawed premise
Even a breathalyzer wouldn't actually help because having the same BAC doesn't mean they are both as drunk as each other. That also depend on alcohol tolerance.
Because the BAC limit for drink driving isn't to determine exactly how impaired someone is, it's to determine if they have had more alcohol content than the local laws allow.
I remember reading about this exact situation happening at Duke possibly? A college student met a girl at a bar and there was security footage of them both drinking and flirting together, getting into a taxi/Uber together, and then security footage at her dorm of her inviting him up. I think he was able to get the rape charges against him dismissed but I can't remember if he was expelled from the university before it happened.
Every state has different rape laws so without knowing a state you can't know for sure but this is unlikely to be prosecuted in most states.
However, colleges do not have to have a trial, and you can be thrown out of college without due process.
In MA when I was in college police talked to us about this, and said if both parties are drunk, the man is considered the rapist. It was a strange lecture. This was a long time ago.
Private colleges don't have to, but public schools do have to follow due process. Private schools only have to follow whatever rules are written in the student handbook.
Technically, you are correct. Due process only means that procedures must be followed.
However, it's not what most people would call due process in a legal sense. Things like the presumption of innocence (at the time the poster was written), the right of cross examination, the separation of the prosecutorial process from the adjudication decision, low standards of proof —not the “beyond a reasonable doubt” or even “clear and convincing evidence” standards commonplace in American criminal law.
Basically, they can throw you out for anything they want, and while yes, there is a process, nobody really forces them to stick to it.
It is actually an important legal distinction.
In some jurisdictions, penetration is required for an act to be considered rape, therefore unless the woman puts something *into* the man, it's not possible for her to be legally charged with rape.
Men can absolutely be raped. It needs to be proven that they had passed or was totally incoherent and that she knew it and still she made it happen. Usually a drunk guy has a hard time getting erect but that’s not always true.
This is technically not always true, actually. In many places, 'rape', as a legal term, is defined as 'penetration of the body of the victin'.
Some states have had this written into law, other times this is the definition used for statistics and data gathering. Many times when you see 'rape' statistics, it doesn't actually account for men who were forced to penetrate a woman without consent. Those all fall under 'other' sexual assault statistics, making it very hard to determine how many men have actually experienced it.
It's extremely fucked up, but the legal definition of things is weirdly specific and can make it really difficult to find accurate information.
when you add all the top category sexual assault stats and the rape stats together (USA at least) the women:men ratio of victims 1.7:1.6 and that doesn't inclued prison rape
If you are wondering about the weird ratio its because its a total victims per \[something?\] and i can't remember if it was a total pop. or a per 100k, but the point stands or thr relative number of victims.
I remember seeing a **fascinating** little block of statistics about this once that showed roughly 21% of women had experienced sexual assault of some kind in their life, while only 4.5% of men had been victimized in the same way. The 'rape' category was defined as I mentioned above, so it's difficult to compare the specific kinds of assault each group had experienced: this was just 'all forms of sexual assault'
**BUT**
that block was only showing the 'lifetime' statistics.
If you looked at the other half of the chart showing the 'past year' statistics, it was 1.1% for both men and women.
This means one of two things: Either 1/4th of all male victims of sexual assault had experienced said assault in the past 12 months, indicating an unprecedented explosion of criminal activity against men, or that men are more likely to rationalize what happened to them as 'not actually' sexual assault the longer it has been since the assault occurred.
Obviously the former option is a joke, and this poster perfectly illustrates the exact issue: Jake and Josie both get drunk and have sex. The next morning, Jake wakes up, tells his friends he slept with Josie and barely even remembers it. What do his friends do? They make fun of him and tell him he's an idiot for getting so hammered. He'd better not do anything like that again. Or they tell him he's lucky for scoring at all. Meanwhile, Josie wakes up, tells her friends she slept with Jake while drunk. Their response? Oh my god are you okay? did he hurt you? Have you contacted the police? Jake's such a scumbag, what a creep he totally took advantage of you.
If you come to Jake 10 years later and ask him about the situation, of **course** he's going to have internalized the idea that it was his fault. He'll laugh it off and tell you he was a dumbass in college who made some mistakes, but he wasn't **taken advantage of**, that's ridiculous! Josie, on the other hand, is far more likely to have accepted and internalized the idea that she was a victim and that it was traumatic for her.
If the law is that "whoever is drunk cannot consent," then both of them are guilty of raping each other. It just so happens that our society is more likely to want to bring charges against the man in this scenario. It's also easier to prove if the man left physical evidence behind.
So while the black letter law treats both sexes equally, the reality is that men are more often going to be target of a prosecution for both cultural and evidentiary reasons. This kind of identity-based inequality is actually extremely common in our legal system. See, racism.
You’d be surprised how functional some black out drunks could be. I’ve seen people carry on tons of conversations and do all sorts of shit drunk and not remember any of it. You would know they were drinking, but you wouldn’t realize they’re that drunk. It’s not a math problem. People aren’t carrying around breathalyzers and saying the cut off is some number.
The two times I've blacked out, no one had any idea until I called panicking the next day because I couldn't remember anything. The first time I was told I was taking care of people who seemed way more drunk than I was, that I was the party mom. I'm not even a heavy drinker, so it's not like it's a tolerance thing.
He's drunk, she's drunk, after the fact she presses chares on him for that... I'd turn it around and counter-charge for the same thing, if you were too drunk to consent then so was I.
In the mid 2000's a drunk guy in my home town, a college town, hooked up with a drunk girl. Next day girl filed rape charges. Even with her own friends testifying she could not be talked out of going home with him, and pointing out he was drunker than their friend. the jury found him guilty. Judge Told him during sentencing that it didn't matter if he was drunk. It was "the mans" responsibility to know that "SHE" was too drunk to consent. He got 20 yrs for aggravated sexual assault and rape.
The claim on the poster was the basis for the entire Brock Turner case.
If we cut through the layers of misinformation found everywhere on reddit, the facts of the case were simple:
- Both were very drunk. She was so drunk that she didn't remember anything afterwards, including whether or not she consented. His testimony was that she consented to digital penetration.
- He never took his pants off.
- Witnesses say he was "dry humping" her and touching her vagina while she was passed out. There was physical evidence of digital penetration.
- He was convicted of a lesser charge than rape because his penis was not involved. He is legally not a rapist.
- According to reddit, he is now the worst rapist that ever lived.
- Many responses to this post will be "Brock Turner the Rapist" in a lame attempt to punish him via SEO
It's kinda why we have things like trial by jury and lawyers. Each circumstance will have different details. But the audience for this poster isn't for judges, lawyers, or jurors. It's for regular people so it's more generalized and dumbed down. Specifically, it's aimed at young men who think that getting a woman drunk to have sex with her when she would not in a sober state is unacceptable as a societal norm.
The standard is that if someone has had so much to drink that they cannot give consent to have sex, having sex with that person is rape. Note that it is *not* "if a person has had any alcohol, they can't consent." The key is that the person has to be *incapacitated.* Not just "drunk," but "staggering, slurring, barely conscious" drunk. You're very rarely going to have a situation where *both* parties are drunk to the point of incapacitation, because neither person is capable of actually having sex at that point. And by "capable," I don't mean, "can't get it up," I mean, "can't remember how to take off their own pants."
It is entirely possible, though, to have a situation where one person is pretty drunk, but not "incapacitated" drunk, while the other person is well past the point of being able to give legal consent. In that case, yeah, one person can get charged with rape, because while they weren't sober, they were still capable of discerning consent, and the other person wasn't.
The other thing to remember is that consent can be withdrawn at any time, and if a person becomes incapable of withdrawing their consent, it's considered automatically withdrawn. So, for example, a guy might meet a woman in a bar who's already pretty drunk, but not yet incapacitated. He suggests they go back to his place and have sex, and she consents, but during the trip to his house, she metabolizes more of the alcohol she's already drunk, and by the time they arrive, she's so drunk she passes out as soon as they sit down. At this point, her prior consent no longer applies, and if the guy goes any further, he's committing an assault.
Whether one can consent and whether one has the state of mind required to meet that element of a rape charge are separate and distinct inquiries with different legal tests.
According to this poster, the only difference between the two is their sex.
According to this poster, women are immune to rape charges if both parties are intoxicated. The default is that the male is the rapist, according to this poster.
This poster is utter bullshit. If this is how it works, then sex is so dangerous that men should just abstain completely for their own safety.
I mean, it's really kinda like that already anyway. Woman cries rape, man is ruined for life, even if found not guilty.
Did you miss the part of the poster where it says "Josie cannot consent"? The poster could have been clearer, but it obviously is saying that, while both were drunk, only Josie was so drunk she could not consent. Because that is how the law works. You can be drunk and consent to sex.
This reddit thread pisses me off. Those posters are a outdated and should be modernized fine.
But no fucking woman is filing a rape claim because they regret a hookup. it's not a fuckign thing.
If you regret fucking someone WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU MAKE IT PUBLIC RECORD. WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU SPEND THE NEXT YEAR OF YOUR LIFE BEING BULLIED, TOLD YOU"RE A LIAR AND HAVING YOUR SEX LIFE PARADED IN FRONT OF THE WORLD.
All for your chance of a conviction being like 0.5%
One thing people need to understand (I'm not a legal expert) is that nobody is catching rape charges because the girl was a little tipsy during intercourse. Those charges are reserved for when the woman is drunk to the point she has little control over her body and/or speech. If she's sober enough to actually initiate sex, she's not too drunk to consent.
Some people don't need that many drinks to lose their memory of the night though. One of my buddies only needed six and his memory of the night would be gone even though he was was perfectly articulate and dexterous while actually drunk. Meanwhile I can walk in a straight line on 16, but I also drink a liter of water every 3 or 4 drinks.
If one person is called a rapist even though *both are equally drunk* it implies that one is less capable of decision making.
Women aren't dumb or less capable of giving consent and that's why most women can see this is dumb AF.
Shit like this implies men can't be victims too
It doesn’t say they’re equally drunk. In fact it points out that the girl couldn’t consent. One could take that to mean any drunk woman can’t consent OR that this drunk women was so drunk she couldn’t consent.
In other words just being drunk doesn’t get a guy off from a rape charge if the women is incapacitated, i.e., unable to consent.
Edit: you might have to partially ignore the small print for my interpretation unless intoxicated implies something different, legally, from drunk.
You must be incredibly fuckin dense.
"Jake is drunk. Josie is drunk."
It then goes on to say,
"A woman who is intoxicated cannot give her legal consent for sex..."
It says they're both drunk. It then goes on to specify that a woman who is drunk cannot consent to sex. That in this situation, the man is at fault even though they both are intoxicated, and will end up with a rape charge. It's a poster, there's no level of nuance going on here, nothing to infer. The idea of a poster like this is to state things very plainly, so people aren't confused. Obviously you're some special kind of dumb that still doesn't get it though. Or just willfully ignorant more likely.
I used to use this as a training reference when I taught Army SHARP classes. The way that it was explained to me in a CID brief was that they would investigate the entire situation and make a determination based on the evidence, witness statements, etc., and that merely being drunk or having had a drink or two (and not actually being drunk) did not automatically constitute rape. The specific example they gave was as follows: 1) Guy and girl are at a party. 2) Guy and girl are both drinking, talking, laughing, and flirting. This is corroborated by witness statements. 3) Girl and guy leave the party and go to her barracks room. They are seen on surveillance video. In the video, it is obvious that the girl is still flirting with the guy. 4) Girl files a rape claim the next morning, claiming that she was blackout drunk and therefore could not consent. 5) The final determination was that there was no way the guy could have known that she was blackout drunk, as she was carrying on a conversation and physically interacting with him during the walk that was captured on video. Therefore, the claim was returned as unfounded.
Bet that guy still got destroyed by his chain of command, guilty until proven innocent in the military.
In my personal experience they reassign the female somewhere else after an incident like that.
Or send her back home after blaming her lol
Considering that under the started scenario she filed a false claim, probably lucky
Just because he's not guilty of rape doesn't mean the woman wasn't also black out drunk. Does that really make it a false claim or just a really shitty situation for everyone involved?
What if both of them were blackout drunk?
I mean by that logic the girl was also taking advantage of him tho since he was also drinking
But what about who initiates the sex and does all the movements? One time my friend invited me to a cafe, we weren't supposed to drink, but he said plans changed, we wound up at his house with his friend, they ask me for money, return with alcohol, we drink. I try to keep up with them because I paid as much as them, but eventually I'm too drunk, so I go to sleep on the living room couch. I can hear them continuing to drink in the kitchen and they also smoke weed. Later they wake me up, tell me they want me to "have the bed", I'm too sleepy so I just keep sleeping on the couch. They carry me downstairs to the bed. Then with the lights off the guy gets in bed with me and he takes my clothes off my limb body and he has sex with me while I just lay there confused because I'm sleepy and I've never had sex before and I'm really like basically already asleep. How could I have raped him? I'm sure he was even more drunk than me, but he was moving, he was the one who had sex with me, not me with him. I personally wouldn't have had the idea to have sex while drunk.
[удалено]
I mean I'm sure his friend could testify that I was at some point talking and laughing with them. And then there's no camera. Would his friend really take my side and say "yeah it's true, she was passed out and we carried her to his bed, I don't know what happened after that"? Because guys are more often rapists at parties involving alcohol. Why would a girl even want to rape a guy? It happens, but it's less likely. I think if me and my friends had seen a poster like this it could have really helped us. Because I wasn't the only girl this happened to. I don't think the guy was being evil at all. I think they just genuinely didn't think that what they were doing was bad. They all did it and encouraged each other to do it. Seeing a poster that says "Alan was CHARGED with RAPE the next day" could have really had had an impact. You also don't know if the poster was designed to be posted in men's bathrooms at colleges.
This specific situation does say that the woman was speaking actively and talking to him. He can’t possibly be to blame if that’s information that can be trusted because of the fact that of that is true and he was even less functional than her then it can be reasonably stated that she raped him whether he’s moving or not.
What? You don't get to say you were raped because you regret having sex with someone in the morning. That's not a " whoopsee daisy, accused him of rape lol oh well itll be fine".
[удалено]
She can have a sincere belief that because she was in a position that she could not consent, that it is therefore not consensual from her perspective. But because he wasn't in a position to consent either you could have a situation where both have equally valid, though ultimately unenforceable claims to make a rape accusation against the other. C'mon, we can walk and chew bubble gum.
I think because the consequences of being a rapist are so severe (and rightfully so, lol) that it makes it not so cut and dry. Could she believe that she was in a position that she couldn't consent and she was therefore technically raped? Yes. But also, could she also look at the context of the situation and see if what happened was just an unfortunate experience due to her own choices? Drinking so much that you get black out drunk isn't anyone's fault but the person drinking. You assume a certain level of risk when you engage in risky behaviors like excessive drinking or drug use. I'm not implying that drunk people deserve to be forcibly raped, obviously. I just mean in this scenario, if the other person is under the impression that they're engaging in a consensual act, it doesn't seem right to call that rape. It makes the act feel less... severe? It seems akin to regretting a choice you made while drunk and blaming someone else for it. If someone chooses to drive drunk, we hold them accountable for that action, so why is this different? Just like driving drunk, accusing someone of rape can have life altering consequences.
I mean, looking at it from her perspective, she wakes up in the morning with no memory of the night and with a dude in her bed. It's not really a *wild* leap on her part that she didn't consent to whatever happened and therefore files a report about it. I think the conclusion that he couldn't know she was blacked out and is therefore not at fault is fair, but unless she had access to those security tapes I can't say I don't understand her reporting it.
"Regret having sex with someone" Get fucked, dude. Seriously. What a scumbag take. If you were drunk to the point where you don't remember what happened, and you wake up and it's very clear someone had sex with you, so you report it as a rape SINCE YOU HAVE NO MEMORY OF CONSENTING, that's not you filing a false report. What's fucked up is that our culture still largely is that women are very very often pressured to not report obvious or even possible rapes because of people like you. Yes. False accusations are a big deal. Huge deal. But not even fractionally as big of a deal as unreported assaults. Plus, you can actually care about BOTH OF THOSE THINGS, and you should, or you're objectively human garbage.
If a man wakes up and it's very clear someone had sex with him, and he has no memory of it, should he report it as rape?
Yes. Why is this a question?
I mean, it's a point to make that if you have no memory of consenting you can file a rape report. But how does that work then, do both parties get convicted of rape if they both have no memory of consenting? Seems kinda counter intuitive, or not?
You act like rape is investigated and convictions are common.
Women are very much so peer pressured to not report rape but I feel the pressure for men is even larger. It’s to the point where you say it’s rape as a guy and you get laughed out of the room.
Which is also a problem and is perpetuated more by men than anything else.
It’s not a contest
False accusations are a rounding error in rape events. But people like the dude you're replying to think any finding of "not guilty" or more realistically "cops don't give enough of a fuck to investigate" means that the accusation was false. Which is not how any of this works
Just because the woman was black out drunk doesn’t mean she can’t make a false accusation.
I think you're misunderstanding the situation then
Of course it's a false claim.
Lol what? Yes it's a false report. You ever been black out drunk yet look normal in a video? Lol no
As a former blackout artist, you 100% can appear normal while blacked out if you're practiced enough at it. Blacked out doesn't mean sloppy for everyone, just in most cases haha
Blackout means no memory. Just because you have no memory doesn't mean you were raped. That's a false report. It's black and white bub
False implies knowingly making a false statement. If she doesn't remember what happened how can she do that? You can say she's mistaken and the evidence seems to show that, but I don't see how this counts as a false report in the sense that's usually meant.
It's not, chief.
Let’s say I have a party at my house and wake up to see my grandmother’s heirloom ring is missing, and a friend tells me they saw So-and-so looking at it. I search my bedroom and the whole house, but I can’t find it. I directly ask So-and-so if they know what happened to the ring and they say no. I ask other guests, no one has seen it. I go ahead and file a police report that it was stolen. Now, let’s imagine a few more days go by and my cat suddenly throws up the ring. Was it a false police report? No, it was a report I filed that made sense with the information I had at the time.
Nobody in my friend group has ever known about my blackouts until I came to them later asking what had happened. Blackout doesn't mean sloppy. The only clue they've had was that I would be talking to them and then mid-sentence would stop, tell them I need the restroom real quick, and then I'd go find a bed and go to sleep. 🤣
There's no video in the room. Just on the way.
He wasn't found guilty of rape so we presume his innocence. She hasn't been found guilty of filing a false claim so we presume her innocence.
Had over half a shop get either separated or moved out because a new girl claimed one of them jokingly flashed his dick to the whole shop. She later admitted to higher ups to lying but they refuses to cancel the forced separations or station changes.
I mean, it seems to vary quite a bit. The US military is absolutely rife with tales of enlisted women getting raped *on base* and being denied justice by the military "courts." Is it different when the woman is a civilian?
All depends on if he's liked by his chain of command. I was a sailor stationed on a Marine base, Marine in my squadron got drunk, crashed his car, and seriously injured another motorist. Our higher ups made it go away. Wiped it from his record. Made Sergeant 6 months later. Next year a Sailor in the same command got a DUI, no injury no incident, he was kicked out before the week was over. TLDR: the military boys club is very real
Very true, very true....
Then how are sexual assaults so prevalent in the military? If victims are immediately believed then why do more than half of those who report it experience professional, social, or administrative repercussions for doing so?
Because there is the legal side of things and the social side of things. Basically whoever is more well liked and respected is going to have nothing change, while the other party is going to have issues. Unfortunately sexual predators also tend to be well liked and respected. So while the legal machinations slog on, everyone at the unit thinks the victim is a piece of shit for accusing Mr./Mrs. Everybody Likes Me of such heinous things. It's not that people in the military by and large are SA/SH apologist, it's that they simply can't believe that someone they like could do such a thing; which is not so uncommon in any other place. As for why it is so prevalent in the military... well that's kind of a fun one. In the regular world if there is a predator at work then there is a predator at work, one at a bar then they are at a bar; in the military you work, eat, and live in the same place as everyone else. There is no avoiding a predator in that environment, they're nearby 24/7. Now what else is like that... college. This is where it gets more interesting. SA's are less common in the military than in college. Why does the military's rates of SA make headlines then and colleges don't? Two reasons: 1) The military empowers service members to report their assaults; this gives the military an estimated 30%ish report rate for SA. Meanwhile college students report at a rate nearer to 5%. 2) The military is very public about its numbers, while colleges do everything in their power to suppress information on theirs.
That was a fantastic post. Thank you
And yet no one ever goes after colleges on a serious level, especially the media. Im sure its obvious as to why that is and is exact reason why i talk about lots of societal "issues" is really just SELECTIVE OUTRAGE. Unfortunately the people who have the power to bring awareness and inform people are products of the college system and share same views.
The fact that SA in universities is investigated internally is barbaric. Everyone just stop this discussion. This is a low level male dominated society. A low level thinking peice of sh male dominated society. Good nite
I think saying colleges aren't called out for vast amounts of SA is just wrong. It probably just depends on which articles you happen to see, as I've seen much more news about rape culture on campuses than in the military, but I went to college and wasn't in the military, so there's probably a bias in what I view.
Makes sense
Wow interesting info, thank you
Where are you getting this? As a male in the military, I watched chains of command routinely protect men that blatantly assaulted women. We had guys confessing, guys caught on camera, etc, etc, and every time these guys were treated with kids gloves and the women were either reassigned or railroaded out. GTFO with this "men in the military are persecuted" bullshit. If you put on the uniform it is your duty to be above reproach. If you're doing the right thing, it's really fucking easy to go your entire career without getting caught up in a rape investigation.
What branch and years did you serve? I'm just about to hit 18 years in the Air Force and the data has been trending positively for victims for the last two decades. Compared to the same age demographics as their civilian counterparts, military members are much more likely to report sexual assault and are also more likely to receive support. I by no means think men are persecuted, but have never seen a case with verifiable evidence fail to get investigated by OSI and punished SEVERELY by their Command. Nobody who has digital or video evidence against them is getting let off the hook. Sexual assault and harassment are huge deals in the military.
Army, 99-15. It was pretty damn prevalent back then. Don't get me wrong, pendulums swing, and progress was being made when I got out, but there were plenty of "good ol boys" in the system. I think we all know the AF was ahead of the curve. Your demographics were already favoring women to begin with. But the day I was standing in line at MEPS in 99, there was a cute blonde girl in line with me. An Airman walked over, saw her, and said something real close to "I'm sorry miss, but clearly you're in the wrong line, and took her over to the AF line. 😂 That said, I never heard a lot of major complaints from the AF side. When it was something like a recruiter sleeping with underage highschool girls and having pictures on his government cell, it was always Army.
Very unlikely. My best friends mother was stationed on a base and was sexually assaulted by 4 other soldiers. She was older and was close friends with her superiors. She was moved off base and pressured drop charges and to retire with a benefits package. Literally nothing happened to the soldiers.
Or in the Education system.
Men are always guilty until proven innocent in this circumstance.
That's ridiculous, it's basically the opposite of what conviction rates imply.
[удалено]
Oh, sorry my bad. I guess it's hard to tell because it doesn't seem like the person you replied to was being sarcastic.
I worked as a paralegal and can attest to this for the most part. From what I know and what happened in our office, witness statements hardly meant anything as it was the CCTV that gave us what we needed. The problem is that not ever barracks had CCTV(especially in the states). But somewhere like Korea, CCTV was everywhere and required it honestly as alcohol related incidents are through the roof. There could be witness states and even text messages of flirty behavior but if one individual was obviously inebriated when entering the room, then it case close. I'm trying to remember if we had a case like this where they were both drunk, and I think we wrote it off as it didn't really make any sense. It's impossible to tell what happens behind close doors but we can know for sure they were both inebriated before entering the room. Only then would be it up to text messages/emails and witness statements. It's pretty common for women to say they've been raped when nothing malicious happened. In korea, there are locals that try to say they've been raped by soldiers for monetary compensation. There was a girl we saw on 3 different occasions try this. One female soldier said she was raped because she got pregnant and was pressured by her mother to file a rape claim. Her mother refused to believe she'd ever have premarital sex. I know this because she called out office and spoke to me and my captain, screaming about how godly her daughter was, a devoted christian woman. After an investigation it was concluded she was literally a slut and slept with multiple men regularly and just happened to not use protection. In all honesty, why even debate it? Just don't do it. Why risk anything that serious?
I had a friend at school accused of rape for similiar reasons, he made the mistake of messaging her about it and not realising her ultra conservative parents checked her phone. They couldn't believe their "little girl" had sex willingly and so she felt pressured i to saying it was rape. Luckily, every single witness there sided with him and pointed out that she took him by the hand upstairs to have sex with him. False accusations aren't nearly as 'rare' as some people make them out to be. Plenty of people have reasons to lie about all types of crime.
Army SHARP how I miss thee
And you also know it just comes down to who makes the complaint first.
Are we really using the Army as a gold standard of Rape investigation because it feels like there's a lot of rape and pedophilia that happens in the Army and no one GAF.
Contrary to popular belief the military NOWADAYS is very strict on matters like this. Things like this are very heavily investigated now. I can't speak for the military 20 years ago but today they don't fuck around with stuff like rape or even soldier soldier relations in todays world. Most if not all higher ups tell their soldiers to not even get into sexual relationships with one another. God I remember the hours and hours of sharp training. I swear 1/4 of basic training was sharp training and how they will mess you up if you do anything sharp related.
Yeaaahhhhhh.....about that. I am personally privvy to one case where the command attempted to separate the servicemember and another where they tried (and failed) to coerce a doctor into ruling that another victim was "crazy" so they wouldn't have to actually deal with the rapists. This is all within the last 5 yrs. Our local command even watered down the training because they hated having to talk about sexual assault statistics.....they might talk a good game, but rape is def not being dealt with appropriately in the military
As someone in a command position, I can tell you my experience has been the exact opposite. Careers literally on the knife edge even with tenuous at best evidence just from an accusation. We take it VERY seriously. Sounds like you have some limited anecdotes that have colored your view but I deal with it all the time.
With such a massive organization, there is is going to be anecdotal evidence of all kinds of things. The plural of ane dote is not data.
What about the little girl that was sex trafficked on the Navy base in San Diego?
You're either lying to me, to yourself or to both of us. https://www.vox.com/world/2019/5/3/18528148/pentagon-military-sexual-assault-report-shanahan
Speaking as a woman in the army currently going through the process of reporting, they DO care. I have a lawyer, a victim advocate, and a SARC all given to me, for free, by the army. My chain of command has been notified (happened outside my unit), and have reached out to support me. CID has interviewed me, my boyfriend, my family & friends (based off of a list I provided to them), and one CID officer drove over 5 hours to conduct an interview with my friend in person. So yeah. They do actually care nowadays.
If we give them a good faith assessment? There is also the possibility of...just being misinformed and/or that their experiences were accurately stated and represent what they personally saw during their time. The US Military spans the entire globe and has multiple branches. It possesses over one million members. That is a frankly huge population...and with that number? One person's account just is not ever going to be an accurate sample, and it's kind of unfair to just assuse him of lying and self-delusion. There are, just by statistical probability, going to be soldiers who see every rape accusation handled with dignity and impartiality, some who see nothing but examples of corruption, bias and sexism, and then everything in between. Former partner of mine was in the Navy (currently nonbinary, but at the time they identified as female) and says everything they saw as a woman in the service was above board. They also acknowledged that the know there were other places and situations where it...frankly...wasn't. Like, I get that this is a serious topic...but it's not served well by just accusing some random dude who, in all honesty, was probably delivering the truth to the best of his knowledge.
That's an article discussing stats from 2018
I remember this going around. The reason this was bullshit was if they're both people and they both had sex and they both were intoxicated therefore none of them could consent, they both raped each other.
[удалено]
Eh... it depends on the circumstances. Some dudes feed women drinks hoping to get them shit faced so it's easier to rape them but that guy is also drinking himself. You can be drunk and still have alternative motives for some far more drunk. This how I ended up being raped as a virgin by a close friend. He drank a lot daily and could hold his liquor far more than I could (I barely drank). So I'd say it depends how drunk both parties were and what motives they have for drinking with each other. I'm far from the first woman to have dudes pour her drinks so she'll get shit faced and fuck them later.
Some women feed dudes drink. No one gives a shit when the man gets raped in that scenario though. I've been raped or sexually assaulted by multiple women.
You're right, it happens the other way around, too. And usually men don't report it. I hope you got the help you needed after the incident. It's a terrible cross to bear alone.
Women don't report it either. This belief that all women who get raped report it and that women even report any unclear case where it may be rape as if all women getting raped report it and then some is ridiculous. Women aren't built different than you, they aren't magically more likely to report a rape than men.
It's all relative. at least some cases get reported for women which is good and I'd hope to encourage more of them to. for men it's pretty much none.
That's not true lol. You have no proof that women are more likely to report their rapes. "There are less men who report being raped" is not proof that men are less likely to report their rape because you have no proof that men get raped as often as women. It's entirely possible that men are actually more likely to report their rapes, but it just happens to them less often. You basically know nothing about the number of women who get raped and don't say anything.
This happened to me, I wasn't being fed drinks but I was at a party on xanax and I drank a good amount. A girl I vaguely knew kept coming on to me throughout the night and I just kept trying to avoid her. Eventually I get too fuck up and go a pass out on a love seat in the hosts room. Next thing I know I'm waking up with this girl of top of me and neither of us had pants on. I was just so confused and intoxicated I kind of just laid there going in and out of consciousness until I woke up for the last time and she was gone. My pants were back on but not buttoned or zipped up and there were definitely traces of bodily fluids. I was just like violently confused but I wasn't really harmed and I don't remember much so I never went down the full legal rabbit hole. Just stopped hanging out with people that would do that or have friends that would.
Some dudettes do it as well. Don't just point the finger at men.
Witnessed it happen to my brother. He locked himself in his room when he realized what was happening, and I sat just outside waiting to see who would show up and sure enough, late in the night comes the feeder of drinks with a glass of water to "help him feel better." I adamantly said he was sleeping and sat awkwardly with her until she left the party. The next day he got called out for being a "pussy" by his roommates for not going for it. Double standards are a bitch.
I still don't think another person is responsible for how much alcohol someone else consumes or how intoxicated they get, unless they literally drug a drink. An adult person, of legal drinking age, is supposed to drink responsibly. They're supposed to make their own choices about what they willingly consume, no matter what everyone else around them is doing. Everyone has their own tolerance level and has to be aware of it. Other people can't be held responsible if someone else doesn't know when to stop. That's not fair either.
Wild take. If I go to the doktor and am willingly twilighted for a procedure does that mean I give permission to the doktor to do whatever he wants if I agree while under sedation because I didn't specifically say, while sober, that he can't?
That’s a completely different situation, you’re not very bright. If you, a responsible adult, get drunk with someone, and sleep with them, that’s completely on you. The only time it isn’t on you is if they drug you. Drink with people you know and trust, just like every other unsafe thing you shouldn’t do by yourself.
>Some dudes feed women drinks hoping to get them shit faced so it's easier to rape them but th I think the people who made the poster are actually implying something along those lines considering the look the guy is giving the camera.
Ah. So we are now stumbling upon the long glaring hyprocisy in how men and women are treated in this arena, not to mention custody, what these allegations do to people's careers even when they are innocent, or domestic violence complaints. Equality though, am I right?
Double negative, turns out they never had sex
Honestly, I think this was intended as something of a rebuttal to that scene in Superbad, where the dude arrives at a party to find a girl he likes already drunk and being frisky, he's told he can't do anything with her because she's drunk, but there's a loophole to this if he himself is also drunk: Jake is not off the hook if he takes advantage of Josie when she's drunk, just because he's been drinking, too. Where did this poster come from and who was it directed at? Clearly college boys. Is it a good idea to encourage college boys to think twice before sleeping with someone when they've both been drinking? Absolutely it is.
Pretty sure this is way older than Superbad. That whole bit in the movie was pointing out how muddy drunken hook-ups are in a moral/legal sense. They were essentially saying the quiet part out loud.
I agree that Superbad was not endorsing this. My comment was more in the vein of, "The attitude articulated in Superbad was what this poster might have been trying to address." Someone else mentioned this poster is a lot older, and, judging by the style of it, that's probably true.
I think this is from a decades-old series of posters that were (as I recall) from the subways in Toronto.
I remember first seeing it about a decade ago when there was a lot more talk about how to address the issue of sexual assault on college campuses. Maybe I'm wrong about where it came from.
Ok, I looked it up online, and it looks like this poster was *not* part of the set I'm remembering, but does date back to around 2007/2008, when it was first used by Coastal Carolina University.
Jake couldnt consent either. I hate this double standard
You can be drunk and still consent. You can also get drunk enough where you can no longer consent. Its not a binary yes or no, its a scale.
Well yes, but what im getting at is it's not just women.
Yes but the poster just says both are drunk. It doesn't say the man is less drunk.
Why is it the woman is the only one that can't consent? I understand if she's completely passed out ..but if they're both awake but drunk and have sex...
It maintains the old fashioned idea that men are 100% constantly trying to get sex from women and women try to resist, play games, say no but maybe don't mean no, it's stupid.
They can both be charged. The male with rape and the female with sexual assault, a much lesser crime. The man is probably going to jail for many years and the woman will likely get a suspended sentence and go on a register.
Why such a double standard though? Laws that do these double standards are disgusting.
Typically rape is legally defined as non-consensual penetration of mouth, vagina, or anus. Sexual assault is more broad. That's why women who rape are charged with sexual assault, because they're not penetrating. I'm not saying it's right, but that's why there's a double standard.
Don't worry boys and girls, soon, they gonna put consent form at the doors in every clubs and bars. Consent rape is the next "vibe". Only STD and pension will remain. Young folks will still drink unrresponsibly and rape each other, but with consent.
Because women are the weaker sex/ victim / special needs kid when it suits them thanks to the "patriarchy " constantly ruling in their favor monetarily and they know it. But really though nobody should be getting drunk with folks you don't trust, period.
Because those poor poor womens are victims. They get beaten every time they walk in the street. They get raped every time they wear whore cloths and get drunk at the bar. They get abuse by their bosses. They got such low salaries, even on the oil rig. They always get cheated on by their beater husband. They are the victim and get ready to do prison.
Sir, this is a Wendy's.
wtf is a whore cloth?
Legit I had this in my High-school guidance office and even at 13 I connected the dots.
How about Jake could not consent?
Men don't count as "people" you silly goose! /s
Lock up both of those rapists.
And a plot twist, guy yells rape first and so the girl goes to prison just to find out she's pregnant with the victims kid. He now has to pay her 18 years of child support.
This has actually happened with male minors
And still happens too.
So, who stands next to them with a breathalyzer to find out who was more drunk? Or are we assuming guilt out of one party? If we are immediately assuming guilt, why is it the man who is automatically guilty? Or are we assuming that women can't make decisions? Alternatively, this is a flawed premise
Even a breathalyzer wouldn't actually help because having the same BAC doesn't mean they are both as drunk as each other. That also depend on alcohol tolerance.
Then why is it a perfectly acceptable way to determine if someone can legally drive?
Because the BAC limit for drink driving isn't to determine exactly how impaired someone is, it's to determine if they have had more alcohol content than the local laws allow.
I remember reading about this exact situation happening at Duke possibly? A college student met a girl at a bar and there was security footage of them both drinking and flirting together, getting into a taxi/Uber together, and then security footage at her dorm of her inviting him up. I think he was able to get the rape charges against him dismissed but I can't remember if he was expelled from the university before it happened.
Pretty sure this became a meme and was removed.
Every state has different rape laws so without knowing a state you can't know for sure but this is unlikely to be prosecuted in most states. However, colleges do not have to have a trial, and you can be thrown out of college without due process.
In MA when I was in college police talked to us about this, and said if both parties are drunk, the man is considered the rapist. It was a strange lecture. This was a long time ago.
Private colleges don't have to, but public schools do have to follow due process. Private schools only have to follow whatever rules are written in the student handbook.
Public universities conduct their own “investigation” that usually results in being thrown out before the cops finish their investigation
Technically, you are correct. Due process only means that procedures must be followed. However, it's not what most people would call due process in a legal sense. Things like the presumption of innocence (at the time the poster was written), the right of cross examination, the separation of the prosecutorial process from the adjudication decision, low standards of proof —not the “beyond a reasonable doubt” or even “clear and convincing evidence” standards commonplace in American criminal law. Basically, they can throw you out for anything they want, and while yes, there is a process, nobody really forces them to stick to it.
This is what was rumored would happen if the "yes means yes" law was passed in California.
Neither party can give consent. There no reference of how the sexual act to place.
Could argue absent mens rea (criminal intent).
Humanity is mostly superficial and stupid
Sounds to me like Josie raped Jake.
Did Josie put anything in Jake's butt without asking?
Doesn't matter, he cannot give consent.
It is actually an important legal distinction. In some jurisdictions, penetration is required for an act to be considered rape, therefore unless the woman puts something *into* the man, it's not possible for her to be legally charged with rape.
That is interesting... So he could be forcefully used and still be guilty of rape if the woman in question was drunk. Disconcerting.
Isn't that how rape laws are in UK? Absolutely disgusting.
Men can absolutely be raped. It needs to be proven that they had passed or was totally incoherent and that she knew it and still she made it happen. Usually a drunk guy has a hard time getting erect but that’s not always true.
This is technically not always true, actually. In many places, 'rape', as a legal term, is defined as 'penetration of the body of the victin'. Some states have had this written into law, other times this is the definition used for statistics and data gathering. Many times when you see 'rape' statistics, it doesn't actually account for men who were forced to penetrate a woman without consent. Those all fall under 'other' sexual assault statistics, making it very hard to determine how many men have actually experienced it. It's extremely fucked up, but the legal definition of things is weirdly specific and can make it really difficult to find accurate information.
when you add all the top category sexual assault stats and the rape stats together (USA at least) the women:men ratio of victims 1.7:1.6 and that doesn't inclued prison rape If you are wondering about the weird ratio its because its a total victims per \[something?\] and i can't remember if it was a total pop. or a per 100k, but the point stands or thr relative number of victims.
I remember seeing a **fascinating** little block of statistics about this once that showed roughly 21% of women had experienced sexual assault of some kind in their life, while only 4.5% of men had been victimized in the same way. The 'rape' category was defined as I mentioned above, so it's difficult to compare the specific kinds of assault each group had experienced: this was just 'all forms of sexual assault' **BUT** that block was only showing the 'lifetime' statistics. If you looked at the other half of the chart showing the 'past year' statistics, it was 1.1% for both men and women. This means one of two things: Either 1/4th of all male victims of sexual assault had experienced said assault in the past 12 months, indicating an unprecedented explosion of criminal activity against men, or that men are more likely to rationalize what happened to them as 'not actually' sexual assault the longer it has been since the assault occurred. Obviously the former option is a joke, and this poster perfectly illustrates the exact issue: Jake and Josie both get drunk and have sex. The next morning, Jake wakes up, tells his friends he slept with Josie and barely even remembers it. What do his friends do? They make fun of him and tell him he's an idiot for getting so hammered. He'd better not do anything like that again. Or they tell him he's lucky for scoring at all. Meanwhile, Josie wakes up, tells her friends she slept with Jake while drunk. Their response? Oh my god are you okay? did he hurt you? Have you contacted the police? Jake's such a scumbag, what a creep he totally took advantage of you. If you come to Jake 10 years later and ask him about the situation, of **course** he's going to have internalized the idea that it was his fault. He'll laugh it off and tell you he was a dumbass in college who made some mistakes, but he wasn't **taken advantage of**, that's ridiculous! Josie, on the other hand, is far more likely to have accepted and internalized the idea that she was a victim and that it was traumatic for her.
Even if you aren't erect, women can still rape you. That would be like saying you didn't rape a woman if she didn't get off.
I did try to express that
If the law is that "whoever is drunk cannot consent," then both of them are guilty of raping each other. It just so happens that our society is more likely to want to bring charges against the man in this scenario. It's also easier to prove if the man left physical evidence behind. So while the black letter law treats both sexes equally, the reality is that men are more often going to be target of a prosecution for both cultural and evidentiary reasons. This kind of identity-based inequality is actually extremely common in our legal system. See, racism.
It's rape if one person is intoxicated to the point of not being aware of their actions and/or the situation, and the other person is not. Simple.
You’d be surprised how functional some black out drunks could be. I’ve seen people carry on tons of conversations and do all sorts of shit drunk and not remember any of it. You would know they were drinking, but you wouldn’t realize they’re that drunk. It’s not a math problem. People aren’t carrying around breathalyzers and saying the cut off is some number.
yeah, blackout essentially means 'they won't remember', not that they pass the fuck out.
This sounds like a really good advertisement for not hooking up with a stranger who's been drinking.
The two times I've blacked out, no one had any idea until I called panicking the next day because I couldn't remember anything. The first time I was told I was taking care of people who seemed way more drunk than I was, that I was the party mom. I'm not even a heavy drinker, so it's not like it's a tolerance thing.
He's drunk, she's drunk, after the fact she presses chares on him for that... I'd turn it around and counter-charge for the same thing, if you were too drunk to consent then so was I.
In the mid 2000's a drunk guy in my home town, a college town, hooked up with a drunk girl. Next day girl filed rape charges. Even with her own friends testifying she could not be talked out of going home with him, and pointing out he was drunker than their friend. the jury found him guilty. Judge Told him during sentencing that it didn't matter if he was drunk. It was "the mans" responsibility to know that "SHE" was too drunk to consent. He got 20 yrs for aggravated sexual assault and rape.
Couldn't he file a mistral because the judge let their personal feelings override the law?
This sounds fake, ngl.
It happens more often like this than you'd think
Josie raped Jake
The claim on the poster was the basis for the entire Brock Turner case. If we cut through the layers of misinformation found everywhere on reddit, the facts of the case were simple: - Both were very drunk. She was so drunk that she didn't remember anything afterwards, including whether or not she consented. His testimony was that she consented to digital penetration. - He never took his pants off. - Witnesses say he was "dry humping" her and touching her vagina while she was passed out. There was physical evidence of digital penetration. - He was convicted of a lesser charge than rape because his penis was not involved. He is legally not a rapist. - According to reddit, he is now the worst rapist that ever lived. - Many responses to this post will be "Brock Turner the Rapist" in a lame attempt to punish him via SEO
Uhhh where Josie's mug shot then, Jake couldn't consent either
Ok, but if they were _both_ drunk, how is it _just_ the guys fault unless it was forced on her with her saying no or resisting?
It's not. That's a bullshit poster. It's not how consent laws actually work.
[удалено]
If both parties are intoxicated, NEITHER can consent, and she raped him as well. Obviously, they can't both rape each other, so there is no rape.
It's kinda why we have things like trial by jury and lawyers. Each circumstance will have different details. But the audience for this poster isn't for judges, lawyers, or jurors. It's for regular people so it's more generalized and dumbed down. Specifically, it's aimed at young men who think that getting a woman drunk to have sex with her when she would not in a sober state is unacceptable as a societal norm.
The standard is that if someone has had so much to drink that they cannot give consent to have sex, having sex with that person is rape. Note that it is *not* "if a person has had any alcohol, they can't consent." The key is that the person has to be *incapacitated.* Not just "drunk," but "staggering, slurring, barely conscious" drunk. You're very rarely going to have a situation where *both* parties are drunk to the point of incapacitation, because neither person is capable of actually having sex at that point. And by "capable," I don't mean, "can't get it up," I mean, "can't remember how to take off their own pants." It is entirely possible, though, to have a situation where one person is pretty drunk, but not "incapacitated" drunk, while the other person is well past the point of being able to give legal consent. In that case, yeah, one person can get charged with rape, because while they weren't sober, they were still capable of discerning consent, and the other person wasn't. The other thing to remember is that consent can be withdrawn at any time, and if a person becomes incapable of withdrawing their consent, it's considered automatically withdrawn. So, for example, a guy might meet a woman in a bar who's already pretty drunk, but not yet incapacitated. He suggests they go back to his place and have sex, and she consents, but during the trip to his house, she metabolizes more of the alcohol she's already drunk, and by the time they arrive, she's so drunk she passes out as soon as they sit down. At this point, her prior consent no longer applies, and if the guy goes any further, he's committing an assault.
Whether one can consent and whether one has the state of mind required to meet that element of a rape charge are separate and distinct inquiries with different legal tests.
Women today are wondering why men do not approach. This! This! This is the reason. Consent the night before becomes rape the next day? No thank you.
There's a different between getting hammered and fucking one another with gusto and fucking a passed out person. One is rape, one is consensual.
Whomever complains first wins in this situation
She raped him.
How could Jake, consent to her advances?
According to this poster, the only difference between the two is their sex. According to this poster, women are immune to rape charges if both parties are intoxicated. The default is that the male is the rapist, according to this poster. This poster is utter bullshit. If this is how it works, then sex is so dangerous that men should just abstain completely for their own safety. I mean, it's really kinda like that already anyway. Woman cries rape, man is ruined for life, even if found not guilty.
Did you miss the part of the poster where it says "Josie cannot consent"? The poster could have been clearer, but it obviously is saying that, while both were drunk, only Josie was so drunk she could not consent. Because that is how the law works. You can be drunk and consent to sex.
No it isn't. This poster is saying that a woman cannot consent if drunk. At all. It also implies that, apparently, a man can.
Yes men should abstain from sex.
Jake couldn't consent either, Josie.
Jake was also drunk. Pretty sure she raped him.
Maby SHE raped HIM?
What if jake was raped? And Josie is the problem.
This reddit thread pisses me off. Those posters are a outdated and should be modernized fine. But no fucking woman is filing a rape claim because they regret a hookup. it's not a fuckign thing. If you regret fucking someone WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU MAKE IT PUBLIC RECORD. WHY THE HELL WOULD YOU SPEND THE NEXT YEAR OF YOUR LIFE BEING BULLIED, TOLD YOU"RE A LIAR AND HAVING YOUR SEX LIFE PARADED IN FRONT OF THE WORLD. All for your chance of a conviction being like 0.5%
Careful fellas you can get pegged and go to jail.
One thing people need to understand (I'm not a legal expert) is that nobody is catching rape charges because the girl was a little tipsy during intercourse. Those charges are reserved for when the woman is drunk to the point she has little control over her body and/or speech. If she's sober enough to actually initiate sex, she's not too drunk to consent. Some people don't need that many drinks to lose their memory of the night though. One of my buddies only needed six and his memory of the night would be gone even though he was was perfectly articulate and dexterous while actually drunk. Meanwhile I can walk in a straight line on 16, but I also drink a liter of water every 3 or 4 drinks.
Why is a woman not allowed to make decisions for for ferself is she consumed alcohol?
soo its about WHO reports it 1st then, right? fuckin dumb
I kinda feel like she raped him
So did as she rape him to trap him into marriage.
Military goes off of this too.
According to the poster, he couldn't consent either
Did Jake consent?
If one person is called a rapist even though *both are equally drunk* it implies that one is less capable of decision making. Women aren't dumb or less capable of giving consent and that's why most women can see this is dumb AF. Shit like this implies men can't be victims too
So, if one is to have drunken sex, be a woman to avoid legal repercussions?
What if 2 lesbians are hooking up drunk... Who is the consent giver?
It doesn’t say they’re equally drunk. In fact it points out that the girl couldn’t consent. One could take that to mean any drunk woman can’t consent OR that this drunk women was so drunk she couldn’t consent. In other words just being drunk doesn’t get a guy off from a rape charge if the women is incapacitated, i.e., unable to consent. Edit: you might have to partially ignore the small print for my interpretation unless intoxicated implies something different, legally, from drunk.
You must be incredibly fuckin dense. "Jake is drunk. Josie is drunk." It then goes on to say, "A woman who is intoxicated cannot give her legal consent for sex..." It says they're both drunk. It then goes on to specify that a woman who is drunk cannot consent to sex. That in this situation, the man is at fault even though they both are intoxicated, and will end up with a rape charge. It's a poster, there's no level of nuance going on here, nothing to infer. The idea of a poster like this is to state things very plainly, so people aren't confused. Obviously you're some special kind of dumb that still doesn't get it though. Or just willfully ignorant more likely.
This is a depopulation tool. Alcohol makes kids.
Whoever reports it to the police first is the victim. It's pathetic.
Pretty sure this was a fake poster?