I'm surprised there has been no mention of the Stanford rape trial and sentence on all nurses. I'm opening up the discussion as I feel it pertains to us in many ways. One as people who may have been victims or know others who have been victims of sexual violence and two as nurses that have taken care of others in this situation, whether directly in ER or a patient suffering from PTSD with other health problems as well.
I applaud the survivor's bravery and her impact statement that has gone public. I hope this will comfort other survivors, but even more I hope this will discourage rape in general. Campus rapes are common and rapes at frats are in the news frequently. Once again a college athlete got off with just a slap on the wrist, although I don't think he counted on all the negative publicity this case has garnered.
What disturbs me the most is the letters of the parents to the judge. The father's don't punish him for 20 minutes of action. Then the mother's letter, who by the way is a nurse for gynecological surgeries and in the past as a pediatric nurse, who had not one iota of empathy for the victim. Her letter simply astonished me. I can't believe as a woman, as a nurse, as a mother of a daughter she had no empathy for the victim! This troubles me the most! I imagine in her years as a nurse she must have taken care of a rape victim and her total lack of empathy for the victim disturbs me greatly!
I am old enough to remember when drunk drivers got off with "diminished mental capacity", BECAUSE they were drunk! it is time that all were taught that you are responsible, drunk, or sober, for what ever you do. getting drunk is sometimes used as an excuse to do what you wanted to do in the first place, that needs to stop.
Just women? So it's ok for men to live like animals but us women have to cover up & be angels? Double standard, don't you think?
Exactly. Why stop at women? I think we should be teaching the boys the exact same thing. I plan on drilling this into my boys when they get to the age. Drinking, drugs, partying can RUIN YOUR LIFE. I will use this monster and other cases where partying boys took advantage of partying girls.
It's my hope and prayer I've been raising them to be honest, respectful human beings who would never treat another human being in such a way. But at the same time, drinking to excess and there are a number of things people do that they might not dream of doing while sober.
I mean, hell, how many teenage boys and girls end up parents after a night of drinking and diminished judgement? That used to be every parent's nightmare....
I have a question that is on the topic of intoxication and consent which has always bothered me. Lets say at this same college party another pair of kids are both near or at black out intoxicated, end up in one of the bed rooms, and wake up next to each other without clothing or memories of what happened the night before. Neither were in a state to give consent, but here they are. Perhaps BOTH are very uncomfortable and feeling violated. Who is the perpetrator and who is the victim in this situation?? Did a rape occur?
I've said that I believe grey situations like that are theoretically possible, but they aren't the norm.
Let's start with the strictest definition of consent I've seen. Only an informed, sober, freely-given, ongoing, enthusiastic Yes!†is consent. I don't think specifically saying Yes you may do that exact thing†is necessary even for affirmative consent, but if that's what you want it can definitely be done in a fun way. And if you're with the same person on an ongoing basis, you learn more about what the other is comfortable with and may need to be less specific as time goes on. I believe that in the absolute absence of other questionable factors, enthusiastic participation is affirmative consent.
If there is a power imbalance, there cannot be consent. For example, if one of the people is very young. This is why there are statutory rape laws, and why the age difference in young partners is taken into account. The difference between 13 and 16 is an enormous one both physically and psychosocially, but the difference between 26 and 29 is minimal. If one person is in power professionally or academically or by demonstration of physical force (not meaning is one person stronger, but is one person posing a threat to the other) or in any other way, the other person cannot consent because if No†has consequences, Yes†is not freely given.
If both people went to a party to get drunk and have sex, and they both followed through on that intent, then there was no rape. But I believe that degrees of impairment via alcohol or drugs can create a power imbalance. For example, if one person has had one beer and feels a slight buzz but the other person has had two beers and the floor won't hold still (my tolerance level), the other person cannot consent. They were both drunk†doesn't fly when only one person was truly impaired. They were both drunk†DEFINITELY doesn't fly when one person was unconscious.
The question is not just did they drink, but did alcohol affect someone's physical ability to withhold consent? Did it change their mental ability to determine whether they really wanted to participate? Would they have refused if they weren't heavily intoxicated? Most importantly, did one party use the intoxication to overcome the other's inhibitions for the purpose of having sex? If yes, that's rape.
People like to create these imaginary fuzzy scenarios then pretend that's what happened in real, black-and-white cases like Stanford. False reports of rape are extraordinarily rare. Rape victims are humiliated to no end with physical exams, invasive questioning, and a culture of skepticism and "Why did you X/Why didn't you Y" that isn't applied to any other crime. Rape almost never gets reported, and even more rarely goes to trial unless it was a stranger and/or someone who used overt force, because that's the kind of rape that even middle-of-the-road rape apologists (the "It wasn't REALLY rape unless Z" type of people) won't excuse. Making an accusation is often more damaging to the victim than the perpetrator, so making a false accusation is a highly unrewarding prospect.
I believe that this culture of fuzzy consent and casual hookups is part of the bigger problem of objectification that's been discussed. This certainly isn't the case everywhere, but what I've personally seen is that the men who seek lots of casual sex are the ones who see women as things to be used for pleasure. Casual sex, ESPECIALLY with strangers, is almost universally more risky and less pleasurable for women. Men (again, not claiming this applies to the entire adult population) are raised to be more aggressive, and culturally, the best we've done with consent education in the past was "no means no." The idea that a partner specifically has to tell you she doesn't want to have sex is a very degrading concept. It means the default position for women is yes, and if a guy can keep the woman from specifically, repeatedly, and emphatically saying she does not want to participate, he gets to call it consensual. To further complicate the matter, they're told that women who say no are just being coy. Women in our culture are trained that being assertive is bad, and that bluntly rejecting a guy is being rude. Men are trained that a women who rejects them is playing hard-to-get. There are also crazy folk out there who will attack women for rejecting them.
Take the incident with Kobe Bryant. (skip this paragraph if you want to avoid a brief description of a specific incident) He brought a stranger alone into his room and regardless of any other debatable details, had sex in a manner that caused bleeding and trauma. He later said Although I truly believe this encounter between us was consensual, I recognize now that she did not and does not view this incident the same way I did. After months of reviewing discovery, listening to her attorney, and even her testimony in person, I now understand how she feels that she did not consent to this encounter.†He believed that is acceptable to initiate and perform an aggressive sexual act on a partner who has not given consent and is not having a mutually pleasurable experience. He did not have clear indication that his partner had given consent and he continued anyway (and if a man is already violently penetrating you, are you going to feel comfortable saying I'd rather not?†or would you be afraid that is going to get you beaten or killed?). And a good portion of the country excused that behavior. If you are not sure if your partner has consented, YOU'RE DOING IT WRONG! It's basic human decency to ensure you only have sex with people who want to have sex with you, and it sickens me that I am surrounded by a culture that disagrees.
When a person is drunk, they're themselves but with lowered inhibitions. So if a guy is already aggressively pursuing a woman, he's likely to be more aggressive. If a man has been trained to railroad a reluctant partner, he's more likely to do that while he's drunk. If a woman is unsure about the guy but is afraid of being too assertive (either out of culturally-ingrained polite†passivity or a fear of the reaction if she's more blunt), she's more likely to end up doing something she really didn't want to.
It's also important to know that most rape is committed by someone the victim knows. Even people who don't go out and party with strangers drink when they're around people they think they can trust. That makes the don't drink and you won't get raped†line even more damaging, because society, in the end, is telling men they get a free pass to live how they will, and women should stay in the house alone with doors and windows locked (and probably a burglar alarm for good measure) while wearing long, loose clothing and not attempting to have fun for form relationships in any way because that would be consent.
TL;DR: Legally, technically, it might be considered rape if both people are drunk. But morally, ethically, I believe that it is more important to know one person used the intoxication as leverage to have sex they know they would not have been able to get were the other person not impaired.
I think the bottom line with consent is that if you're looking for loopholes, you're a rapist. If you think it's problematic to make sure your partner is enjoying the activity (like a previous poster whining at the Tea Consent guidelines that it's inconvenient to stop at any hint of a no†in post 119), you're definitely a scumbag, and possibly a rapist. If you are interested in sexual activity when the other person is not actively enjoying themselves, there is something wrong with you.
Based on the first hand knowledge shared with me by a corrections officer, this boy faces probable physical and sexual assault by other inmates who do not take kindly to rapists. I imagine he will spend a lot of time in seg just to keep him safe.
I'm not saying that as a sympathizer to what he did. I'm a survivor of sexual assault and rape, and I'm appalled at how gentle our legal system is to sexual predators.
Thinking about this...
Anyone been reminded of the movie Kids each time this comes up? This makes me want to make sure my kids see that movie before they're allowed to go out with their friends without adults.
Yes, Kids Kids Kids. Scenes from that movie disturb me to this day.
I've said that I believe grey situations like that are theoretically possible, but they aren't the norm.
I don't think the situation is that out of the norm. I remember high school well, it was not that abnormal for a night of partying to lead to 2 intoxicated people hooking up, often to the regret of one or both parties the next day. I guess I'm having trouble with strictly viewing a woman who is intoxicated as being unable to consent under any circumstances.
What if a women is the initiator and the man is intoxicated himself? In a perfect world, the man would recognize the woman has had a bit too much to drink but lets be honest here, teen and young adult men that have a woman initiating sex, ESPECIALLY if their own inhibitions are lowered, are often going to participate.
Young man and woman wake up together. Both a bit regretful. I see this situation as consentual, personally.. but I see where some would say because she was intoxicated, she truly couldn't consent. I guess that's where I'm looking for clarification.
I am really not trying to be argumentative... this is such a complex issue.
People like to create these imaginary fuzzy scenarios then pretend that's what happened in real, black-and-white cases like Stanford. False reports of rape are extraordinarily rare. Rape victims are humiliated to no end with physical exams, invasive questioning, and a culture of skepticism and "Why did you X/Why didn't you Y" that isn't applied to any other crime. Rape almost never gets reported, and even more rarely goes to trial unless it was a stranger and/or someone who used overt force, because that's the kind of rape that even middle-of-the-road rape apologists (the "It wasn't REALLY rape unless Z" type of people) won't excuse. Making an accusation is often more damaging to the victim than the perpetrator, so making a false accusation is a highly unrewarding prospect.
I really agree with this portion of your post. I visit another message forum that is primarily visited by college educated professionals. The philosophy that rape accusations (primarily discussing college rape accusations) are most often made after "regret sex" is PERVASIVE, and imo it just defies belief. The way rape victims are treated in this country is often despicable. WHY would any woman in her right mind wrongly accuse someone of rape simply because she is embarrassed to have had a one night stand or had sex with someone she didn't know well? It's not the dark ages anymore-women are not branded with a scarlet letter because they have had sex while not married. To think it would be preferable to accuse someone of rape, and endure all of the horrible stuff that goes with that, than to experience "regret" or embarrassment over a hook up, and that women are making that choice in great numbers, imo, is one of the founding principles of our "rape culture." People seem far more concerned about this whole issue of "consensual sex resulted in regret which resulted in ruining an innocent man's life" than they are about the staggering number of rapes which actually occur to not only women, but children and men as well. "But you know, she's just a vindictive &^%."
I really agree with this portion of your post. I visit another message forum that is primarily visited by college educated professionals. The philosophy that rape accusations (primarily discussing college rape accusations) are most often made after "regret sex" is PERVASIVE, and imo it just defies belief. The way rape victims are treated in this country is often despicable. WHY would any woman in her right mind wrongly accuse someone of rape simply because she is embarrassed to have had a one night stand or had sex with someone she didn't know well? It's not the dark ages anymore-women are not branded with a scarlet letter because they have had sex while not married. To think it would be preferable to accuse someone of rape, and endure all of the horrible stuff that goes with that, than to experience "regret" or embarrassment over a hook up, and that women are making that choice in great numbers, imo, is one of the founding principles of our "rape culture." People seem far more concerned about this whole issue of "consensual sex resulted in regret which resulted in ruining an innocent man's life" than they are about the staggering number of rapes which actually occur to not only women, but children and men as well. "But you know, she's just a vindictive &^%."
I agree with this completely. Many men and women regret intoxicated decisions to jump in bed, I've never known any to claim it was rape.
But it does seem that people are kind of pushing the envelope with regards to consent. If a person is intoxicated, can they consent to sex? I think so, but not everyone seems to agree with this.
We have to be responsible for our actions. Regretting consenting to sex and being raped are very, very different. But are those lines going to become blurred by this idea that a woman who has had a few drinks is too fragile to make the choice to have sex with a man, who may or may not be equally intoxicated (maybe more so).
Obviously, when there is an aggressor and the victim is falling down or passed out drunk, you've got a violent crime taking place every single time.
I don't think the situation is that out of the norm. I remember high school well, it was not that abnormal for a night of partying to lead to 2 intoxicated people hooking up, often to the regret of one or both parties the next day. I guess I'm having trouble with strictly viewing a woman who is intoxicated as being unable to consent under any circumstances.
What if a women is the initiator and the man is intoxicated himself? In a perfect world, the man would recognize the woman has had a bit too much to drink but lets be honest here, teen and young adult men that have a woman initiating sex, ESPECIALLY if their own inhibitions are lowered, are often going to participate.
Young man and woman wake up together. Both a bit regretful. I see this situation as consentual, personally.. but I see where some would say because she was intoxicated, she truly couldn't consent. I guess that's where I'm looking for clarification.
I am really not trying to be argumentative... this is such a complex issue.
I think you're being thoughtful, not argumentative. I wholly agree that if two people get stupid drunk and hook up when neither of them would have otherwise, it's not rape, it's just a bad decision. I said legally it might still met the definition of rape, under the paradox that they both raped each other, but morally I do disagree with that. I certainly don't always believe that men are always sexually aggressive or that women are always passive, or that a drunk hookup that's questionable is always the man's fault.
I'm coming into this discussion from the initial perspective that it is about a case where two people had alcohol, there was sexual activity, and one said she was raped. I certainly believe that people can make bad decision about sex, especially while drunk, and come to regret those decisions, but what I have in mind for most of my statements are the situations where accusations have been made.
I believe that hookup culture is an overlapping, but not identical, problem, and that it creates a safe hiding place for rapists.
We have to be responsible for our actions. Regretting consenting to sex and being raped are very, very different. But are those lines going to become blurred by this idea that a woman who has had a few drinks is too fragile to make the choice to have sex with a man, who may or may not be equally intoxicated (maybe more so).
My definition of consent comes down to intent. If someone uses alcohol as a tool to get another person's pants off, it's rape.
Example... I was in a hotel with someone who was interested in me. They offered me a drink. Before I even had a sip, I decided that yes, the interest was mutual, and my answer was going to be yes. Before I drank. I reciprocated someone's advances after I'd been drinking, but the alcohol didn't change anything about my behavior. My consent was freely given regardless of the alcohol.*
*Most kids and many adults would not put as much thought into this as I do, but with my traumatic experiences having happened when I was so young, you can bet I go through a thousand risk assessments before I end up alone in a room with a person, let alone a hotel room, with alcohol... but even if I weren't that careful, even if something changed after I'd been drinking and I wanted out, if the person I was with ignored that and continued, it wouldn't have been my fault, and I don't blame rape victims who didn't do Every Single Thing Right.
The law HAS to draw a line somewhere with regard to intoxication, or people like the Stanford rapist would face no consequences whatsoever. He was a hundred miles past where most people would draw a line in the sand, even if we don't always draw that line in the exact same place. Even with three felony convictions, he's getting a slap on the wrist. If there weren't some sort of law in place about consent and intoxication, he might have gotten away with it altogether, like the case in OK that someone mentioned.
If having laws on the books about intoxication invalidating consent means people need to be a little more careful about how their own drunken sexual behavior affects others, well, I'm ok with that.
It would be wonderful if this individuals actions and punishment helped staunch the endless flow of sexual predators that we seem to be plagued with, but seriously, I think we all know this is not the case. They just get smarter, more devious, more sneaky. And a lot of those convicted would commit their crimes in broad daylight in front of an audience of law enforcement officers if they could get that guys sentence. But do you know what gets me the worst? I have to treat him like I would treat any patient in my care. Even when everything inside me would love more than anything to see that he got just the treatment he deserved. Being a patient is the great equalizer, truly. And while the woman in me is outraged, the nurse in me prays for mental, emotional and spiritual healing for his victim, and the Christian in me prays for his turn from his current life, a genuine regret for his actions, his admission of guilt, and a request for forgiveness from the victim and all womanhood. I have worked with the incarcerated at a prison in Missouri and the one thing I did learn is that most inmates deny they ever did anything wrong or that it's someone else's fault, never theirs. I too am disappointed that the rapists mother condoned her sons actions with her silence, she is his mother and he would be where her loyalty lies. I would however, think she would express her sympathy to the victim after her son was sentenced. Just another sad sign of the times.
Just women? So it's ok for men to live like animals but us women have to cover up & be angels? Double standard, don't you think?
Yes, double standard and old-fashioned, as stated in my first post. I still believe there'd have been no Stanford Rape if the young woman had not drunk excessively and gone off alone to a bedroom with this fellow. Did he drag her there? Lace her drink with something? Force drink down her throat? I have not read her account of what happened, so really don't know. I know the judge is catching some backlash for his ridiculously lenient sentence. And I am for my views that are out of step with modern life, as least, as it is portrayed in the media, TV, movies, which still doesn't mean it's a majority view of modern life. And what if it is? We each have to decide where to stand on any given matter. Sure, it's easier to go with the flow, on the surface, at least. But can you live with yourself privately, in your heart, where you know your real feelings?
Was it right for him to take advantage, to rape? No. Of course not.
For men, rape accusations are good things to avoid. I think parents need to teach their sons and classmates/fraternity brothers need to really look out for each other in this area. That is, a duty sober should be monitoring his peers and preventing these 'hookups", as the latest terminology goes. Why does the goal of parties have to be sex? Yeah, I know, hormones.
Better to put morality, ethics, not bringing shame to the family name or to a woman, God for me first.
OK, flame away.
Those who are younger here and did not grow up in such a double standard as we older folks did will have a hard time understanding this view.
morte, LPN, LVN
7,015 Posts
I am old enough to remember when drunk drivers got off with "diminished mental capacity", BECAUSE they were drunk! it is time that all were taught that you are responsible, drunk, or sober, for what ever you do. getting drunk is sometimes used as an excuse to do what you wanted to do in the first place, that needs to stop.