Do you have adblock enabled?
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox 8 Cleveland)   You thought it was over? Two Steubenville girls arrested for tweeting threats against the Steubenville rape victim. Sick tag unresponsive in a corner somewhere   (fox8.com ) divider line
    More: Followup, Steubenville, rape victim, Mike DeWine  
•       •       •

14226 clicks; posted to Main » on 19 Mar 2013 at 1:19 AM (3 years ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



505 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-03-19 11:14:39 AM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: deanis: SundaesChild: GregoryD: I played high school football. I never raped anyone.

In fact, I gained no additional respect/favors/dates from anyone playing football even though I was one of the best players on the team. I started every varsity game for three years and I was the team captain my senior year. I didn't even go to my proms.

Just because this town has some farked up problems, don't somehow bunch every school/town/football program together. That is just stupid.

Just because you don't understand football there is no reason to bash it.

You want to blame something? How about now every kid at the age of 10 sees every kind of rape, murder, suicide, dead body, beheading, sexual act on the internet? By 12 they've seen every kind of depravity known to man and suddenly you are surprised that they are desensitized to fingerbanging a drunk girl?

Not drunk - passed out. And "fingerbanging" her as you so charmingly put it is only what they were convicted of, if you read the court transcripts, the Tweets and texts, you'll see references to taking pics of her naked passed out body, slapping her with their penises, ejaculating on her, possibly penetrating her anally and inviting people to pee on her.

Yet people like ESC will defend these actions. I seriously think he has vast knowledge of the topic from committing these crimes first hand.

"People like ESC" want what's good for the gander to be good for the goose, in these situations.

That 'possibly penetrating her anally' is a hoot and a half though.  Gotta add that in there, though there's no proof whatsoever, right? because what really happened isn't bad enough for those who do the telling.

Takes it from molestation to penetration, and not just any kind of penetration but the kind a straight man understands as unwanted.  I see ya working.

I just don't agree with where you're going with it.  Again, they farked up.

Is there any actual proof there was anything in her system beyond enough alcohol to make a Russian pass out?  Or is that just on the same level as 'possibly penetrating her anally'?

/To Young Men:  Young Women are not your equals, so don't treat them the same way you'd treat other young men


There is circumstantial evidence in the collection of texts and tweets - not enough for a conviction but enough to know that people at the parties believed it occurred.
 
2013-03-19 11:15:01 AM  

ADHD Librarian: In a situation where someone is impaired by alcohol (yay, teenage party), they are unable to (by law in most jurisdictions) consent to a sexual encounter. If both participants are impaired, how does a legal system decide which one is the rapist? Or, could it be (like with teenage self portraits) that one person can be both the victim AND the perpetrator of the crime?


In an objective interpretation, both are simultaneously the victims of a rape and also the perpetrators.

In practice, that's a hard prosecution, because all witnesses are hostile to the prosecution.
 
2013-03-19 11:15:15 AM  

quickdraw: ADHD Librarian:

/As an interesting aside though (and I asked this question myself during a recent training session on counselling teenagers on matters of sexuality, but no one could (or would?) answer it clearly. Too many lawyers in the room for anyone to offer a free opinion).
In a situation where someone is impaired by alcohol (yay, teenage party), they are unable to (by law in most jurisdictions) consent to a sexual encounter. If both participants are impaired, how does a legal system decide which one is the rapist? Or, could it be (like with teenage self portraits) that one person can be both the victim AND the perpetrator of the crime?

A rape is not a sexual encounter. If you understand it as just another form of physical assault then it's pretty straightforward. The perpetrator is solely at fault and cannot be a victim.


A person who is capable of actively DOING something to someone else is, by definition, responsible for their actions. A situation in which both or all parties involved are passed-out drunk or high is a situtation in which nothing is going to happen anyway. If someone possesses the faculties to DO something TO someone else, they possess the faculties to erfrain from doing it.
 
2013-03-19 11:17:53 AM  

SundaesChild: There is circumstantial evidence in the collection of texts and tweets - not enough for a conviction but enough to know that people at the parties believed it occurred.


There's a conviction from a court of law, one with access to details, facts, and evidence we aren't.  Between this thread and the last one, I'm kinda assuming the people complaining there's no evidence these criminals are criminals simply want access to the pictures and videos taken of the victim, for their own satisfaction.
 
2013-03-19 11:18:12 AM  

CeroX: The argument about pass out drinking is this:
It doesn't matter if you are male, or female, getting so drunk you pass out is an opportunity for scumbags


No it isn't. In social environments where rape is considered unacceptable raping an unconscious person is not seen as an easy opportunity because the people around you will object.
 
2013-03-19 11:20:08 AM  

jso2897: quickdraw: ADHD Librarian:

/As an interesting aside though (and I asked this question myself during a recent training session on counselling teenagers on matters of sexuality, but no one could (or would?) answer it clearly. Too many lawyers in the room for anyone to offer a free opinion).
In a situation where someone is impaired by alcohol (yay, teenage party), they are unable to (by law in most jurisdictions) consent to a sexual encounter. If both participants are impaired, how does a legal system decide which one is the rapist? Or, could it be (like with teenage self portraits) that one person can be both the victim AND the perpetrator of the crime?

A rape is not a sexual encounter. If you understand it as just another form of physical assault then it's pretty straightforward. The perpetrator is solely at fault and cannot be a victim.

A person who is capable of actively DOING something to someone else is, by definition, responsible for their actions. A situation in which both or all parties involved are passed-out drunk or high is a situtation in which nothing is going to happen anyway. If someone possesses the faculties to DO something TO someone else, they possess the faculties to erfrain from doing it.


Actually, no.  In most places, you don't have to be "passed out drunk" to be unable to consent, you only have to be "impaired", to legally be unable to consent.
 
2013-03-19 11:24:43 AM  

BunkoSquad: It's basically time to burn Steubenville to the ground and salt the earth so nothing grows again there, isn't it?


I'm okay with this

/Duke has to go, too
 
2013-03-19 11:26:35 AM  
i.imgur.com

/Well, there's your problem
 
2013-03-19 11:28:06 AM  
Also, when I have been at parties when my friends (of either sex) were black out drunk, my initial reaction was to call a cab and get them home safely, not draw penises on their faces or find someone suitably equipped to "tea bag" them.
 
2013-03-19 11:31:24 AM  

quickdraw: ADHD Librarian:

/As an interesting aside though (and I asked this question myself during a recent training session on counselling teenagers on matters of sexuality, but no one could (or would?) answer it clearly. Too many lawyers in the room for anyone to offer a free opinion).
In a situation where someone is impaired by alcohol (yay, teenage party), they are unable to (by law in most jurisdictions) consent to a sexual encounter. If both participants are impaired, how does a legal system decide which one is the rapist? Or, could it be (like with teenage self portraits) that one person can be both the victim AND the perpetrator of the crime?

A rape is not a sexual encounter. If you understand it as just another form of physical assault then it's pretty straightforward. The perpetrator is solely at fault and cannot be a victim.


Not going to argue with that at all. In fact I will agree with you 100%.
But I suspect you have misconstrued my point. No problem, I write in a very awkward style so I will try and keep the myriad of commas under control and rephrase...

Given that (at least here where I am) a person who is impaired by alcohol cannot consent to sex and (again, where I am) sex without consent is rape (it seems from some discussions this is not always the case, so lets assume I am using rape/sexual assault interchangeably as a colloquial, rather than legal definition).
Umm,
Take 3...
If sex without consent is rape and an intoxicated person cannot consent, what happens when 2 intoxicated people have a sexual encounter. Are they both rapists and also both victims?
I asked the question in a training course because as someone who works with young people I felt that there was an ambiguity in the language and teenagers do not always deal well with ambiguity.
I mentioned it here as an aside (and probably shouldn't as it was not pertinent to this case, well, perhaps except in the sense that when only 1 of you is conscious such technicalities are irrelevant and offer absolutely no defence).
 
2013-03-19 11:36:37 AM  

ADHD Librarian: quickdraw: ADHD Librarian:

/As an interesting aside though (and I asked this question myself during a recent training session on counselling teenagers on matters of sexuality, but no one could (or would?) answer it clearly. Too many lawyers in the room for anyone to offer a free opinion).
In a situation where someone is impaired by alcohol (yay, teenage party), they are unable to (by law in most jurisdictions) consent to a sexual encounter. If both participants are impaired, how does a legal system decide which one is the rapist? Or, could it be (like with teenage self portraits) that one person can be both the victim AND the perpetrator of the crime?

A rape is not a sexual encounter. If you understand it as just another form of physical assault then it's pretty straightforward. The perpetrator is solely at fault and cannot be a victim.

Not going to argue with that at all. In fact I will agree with you 100%.
But I suspect you have misconstrued my point. No problem, I write in a very awkward style so I will try and keep the myriad of commas under control and rephrase...

Given that (at least here where I am) a person who is impaired by alcohol cannot consent to sex and (again, where I am) sex without consent is rape (it seems from some discussions this is not always the case, so lets assume I am using rape/sexual assault interchangeably as a colloquial, rather than legal definition).
Umm,
Take 3...
If sex without consent is rape and an intoxicated person cannot consent, what happens when 2 intoxicated people have a sexual encounter. Are they both rapists and also both victims?
I asked the question in a training course because as someone who works with young people I felt that there was an ambiguity in the language and teenagers do not always deal well with ambiguity.
I mentioned it here as an aside (and probably shouldn't as it was not pertinent to this case, well, perhaps except in the sense that when only 1 of you is conscious such technicalities are irrelevant ...


Ignoring that both people are drunk, are they both willing participants? Or is one doing most/all of the work?
 
2013-03-19 11:36:38 AM  

CeroX: You know what's laughable about this entire thread...

The biggest point about being black out drunk are the people who think when someone says "Don't get black out drunk or you could get raped"

is interpreting that as "that internet meanie says black out drunk is asking for rape so it's blaming the victim and justifying rape culture"

when the reality is:

It's not asking to get raped, no one asks to get raped... And it's not implied... What the reality is, it opens the door of opportunistic rapists to rape... To them, it's an opportunity, one they couldn't take if the playing field was leveled. That makes them cowardly scum rapists instead of aggressive asshole rapists...

No one is justifying what they did except controversy stirring media shills... And no one is BLAMING the victim...
....
We are trying to help people not get raped... it's not easy to identify rapists, they don't dress in special clothes, there's no gang signs or colors for rapists, and they don't walk around with raging rapist hard ons... so we advise, rapists could be anywhere, and we don't want you to get raped, so please don't get so drunk you pass out, because you might not get raped the first time, or the fifth time, but the risk of getting raped is probably hundreds of times higher than when you aren't passed out...

Risky behavior is a numbers game before something catastrophic happens... just ask Steve Irwin

 ...

Exactly, no one asks to be stabbed in the chest by a stingray, but if you swim around the barrier reef half naked, it's just a matter of time!

how is that any different? yeah no one should be raped, freakin obviously, but when you can't know or trust those around you you should never let yourself, an underage girl, drink yourself into a blackout. that's just idiotic because then you're at the mercy of whoever else is there and it's just a matter of time until it happens when someone with equally impaired judgement is there to take advantage. I'm not "blaming the victim" so don't even claim that I am, but in this case  she can't be completely absolved either.
 
2013-03-19 11:39:32 AM  

quickdraw: ADHD Librarian:

/As an interesting aside though (and I asked this question myself during a recent training session on counselling teenagers on matters of sexuality, but no one could (or would?) answer it clearly. Too many lawyers in the room for anyone to offer a free opinion).
In a situation where someone is impaired by alcohol (yay, teenage party), they are unable to (by law in most jurisdictions) consent to a sexual encounter. If both participants are impaired, how does a legal system decide which one is the rapist? Or, could it be (like with teenage self portraits) that one person can be both the victim AND the perpetrator of the crime?

A rape is not a sexual encounter. If you understand it as just another form of physical assault then it's pretty straightforward. The perpetrator is solely at fault and cannot be a victim.


accept according to the LAW, minors are incapable of giving consent... so that person's point, is that LEGALLY speaking, 2 people who are 14 who have sex, are, by LAW incapable of consensual sex, therefore, WHO is the rapist by LEGAL definition?

This isn't your opinion, OR the opinion of the general populace... we ALL know that if someone forces or coerces themselves on a person who didn't consent to sex that it's rape... but there are soft issues, such as 2 people who the law says are incapable of making a consensual sexual decisions... so who's "at fault"? The law simply turns a blind eye to those situations or it criminalizes the males because males are defaulted as the aggressor where women are concerned...

So put aside YOUR opinion and look at the law as it is written

Seriously, i hope you are never on jury, you can't seem to look at the law objectively, and certainly incapable of looking at rape objectively, and more than willing to sling mud at those of us who look at rape from a legal standpoint and therefore look at the cases objectively... Just come out and admit that you are incapable of having a rational objective conversation about rape and politely excuse yourself from the conversation and let those who understand debate play on the internet...
 
2013-03-19 11:57:44 AM  

Jorn the Younger: jso2897: quickdraw: ADHD Librarian:

/As an interesting aside though (and I asked this question myself during a recent training session on counselling teenagers on matters of sexuality, but no one could (or would?) answer it clearly. Too many lawyers in the room for anyone to offer a free opinion).
In a situation where someone is impaired by alcohol (yay, teenage party), they are unable to (by law in most jurisdictions) consent to a sexual encounter. If both participants are impaired, how does a legal system decide which one is the rapist? Or, could it be (like with teenage self portraits) that one person can be both the victim AND the perpetrator of the crime?

A rape is not a sexual encounter. If you understand it as just another form of physical assault then it's pretty straightforward. The perpetrator is solely at fault and cannot be a victim.

A person who is capable of actively DOING something to someone else is, by definition, responsible for their actions. A situation in which both or all parties involved are passed-out drunk or high is a situtation in which nothing is going to happen anyway. If someone possesses the faculties to DO something TO someone else, they possess the faculties to erfrain from doing it.

Actually, no.  In most places, you don't have to be "passed out drunk" to be unable to consent, you only have to be "impaired", to legally be unable to consent.


If you're sober enough to get a hardon, you're sober enough to be responsible for what you do with it. If you are sober enough to control and dictate what happens, you are responsible for what happens.  The point is that if two individuals are REALLY equally "incapacitated. by definition, neither can do anything to the other. If one of them CAN, they are not equally incapacitated.
Theoretically, I guess there COULD be a real-world scenario where that was the case, but I haven't heard of one. I don't think we are talking about a real thing here.
 
2013-03-19 12:06:08 PM  

CeroX: accept according to the LAW, minors are incapable of giving consent... so that person's point, is that LEGALLY speaking, 2 people who are 14 who have sex, are, by LAW incapable of consensual sex, therefore, WHO is the rapist by LEGAL definition?


There is a difference between statutory rape and assault rape.
 
2013-03-19 12:12:33 PM  

jso2897: If you're sober enough to get a hardon, you're sober enough to be responsible for what you do with it. If you are sober enough to control and dictate what happens, you are responsible for what happens. The point is that if two individuals are REALLY equally "incapacitated. by definition, neither can do anything to the other. If one of them CAN, they are not equally incapacitated.
Theoretically, I guess there COULD be a real-world scenario where that was the case, but I haven't heard of one. I don't think we are talking about a real thing here.


again, that is your opinion vs. the law as it is written... the law in some places says that a woman who has had any alcohol or judgement impairing drugs within a certain span of time is incapable of consenting to sex, but in the same area the exact opposite is true for men... so your opinion is aligned with the law, but an area may also have a law stating that minors under a certain age, regardless of gender, are incapable of consent, this is the law, not your opinion, it doesn't matter if they were drinking or just horny after school, the law in a lot of places states that 2 people 14 years old, are incapable of consent, period... So 2 kids, 14 years old who sneak off to have sex are breaking the law and because the way the law is written, they are also both victims... The problem comes into that the only time the laws are enforced are when there are obvious variables in play that make determining who is the victim... In this case, it was obvious... when an adult and a minor have sex, it doesn't matter if the minor pleads to the courts that they wanted to fark the adult and would do it again and again if given the chance, the law explicitly states that the minor is incapable of making a decision like that for themselves... but in those cases the victim is easy to ID

What Jorn is arguing and what you are arguing are apples and oranges... they might both be fruit, but that is where the similarities stop, because jorn is arguing law, and you are arguing personal opinion...
 
2013-03-19 12:15:05 PM  

jso2897: If you're sober enough to get a hardon, you're sober enough to be responsible for what you do with it. If you are sober enough to control and dictate what happens, you are responsible for what happens.


NO. People are held accountable for their actions even if they are drunk and/or don't have a hard on. If you engage in criminal activity while you are drunk you are still liable for whatever damages you cause.
 
2013-03-19 12:19:09 PM  

quickdraw: NO. People are held accountable for their actions even if they are drunk and/or don't have a hard on. If you engage in criminal activity while you are drunk you are still liable for whatever damages you cause.


Hence why convicted drunk drivers can sue the bars that served them.
 
2013-03-19 12:22:11 PM  
A couple spineless brats  begging for pats on the head from the rest of the football team, in exchange for being good little girls and throwing the victim under the bus.  There's a term for this shiat:

http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=pleaserwhore
 
2013-03-19 12:22:35 PM  

jso2897: Jorn the Younger: jso2897: quickdraw: ADHD Librarian:

/As an interesting aside though (and I asked this question myself during a recent training session on counselling teenagers on matters of sexuality, but no one could (or would?) answer it clearly. Too many lawyers in the room for anyone to offer a free opinion).
In a situation where someone is impaired by alcohol (yay, teenage party), they are unable to (by law in most jurisdictions) consent to a sexual encounter. If both participants are impaired, how does a legal system decide which one is the rapist? Or, could it be (like with teenage self portraits) that one person can be both the victim AND the perpetrator of the crime?

A rape is not a sexual encounter. If you understand it as just another form of physical assault then it's pretty straightforward. The perpetrator is solely at fault and cannot be a victim.

A person who is capable of actively DOING something to someone else is, by definition, responsible for their actions. A situation in which both or all parties involved are passed-out drunk or high is a situtation in which nothing is going to happen anyway. If someone possesses the faculties to DO something TO someone else, they possess the faculties to erfrain from doing it.

Actually, no.  In most places, you don't have to be "passed out drunk" to be unable to consent, you only have to be "impaired", to legally be unable to consent.

If you're sober enough to get a hardon, you're sober enough to be responsible for what you do with it. If you are sober enough to control and dictate what happens, you are responsible for what happens.  The point is that if two individuals are REALLY equally "incapacitated. by definition, neither can do anything to the other. If one of them CAN, they are not equally incapacitated.
Theoretically, I guess there COULD be a real-world scenario where that was the case, but I haven't heard of one. I don't think we are talking about a real thing here.


I'm not referring to an actual situation, just the laws of consent, which tend to be such that impairment due to alchohol is not limited to "black-out drunk", and I'm referring to legal consent, not only regarding sexual interactions,

/should have been more clear
//has had a long day week
 
2013-03-19 12:22:59 PM  
My daughter was raped by a football player @ 14 . You know what the cops said? But --- But hes a star football player,do you really want to do this?

Farking Canton ,Ohio

Now ya know
They take that shait seriously
 
2013-03-19 12:24:15 PM  

GoldSpider: quickdraw: NO. People are held accountable for their actions even if they are drunk and/or don't have a hard on. If you engage in criminal activity while you are drunk you are still liable for whatever damages you cause.

Hence why convicted drunk drivers can sue the bars that served them.


Yes they can sue. But they very rarely win.
 
2013-03-19 12:25:26 PM  

Seasons I'v Withered: My daughter was raped by a football player @ 14 . You know what the cops said? But --- But hes a star football player,do you really want to do this?

Farking Canton ,Ohio

Now ya know
They take that shait seriously


so sorry. Hope shes dealing with all this ok. Probably quite the trigger for her.
 
2013-03-19 12:33:37 PM  

quickdraw: Seasons I'v Withered: My daughter was raped by a football player @ 14 . You know what the cops said? But --- But hes a star football player,do you really want to do this?

Farking Canton ,Ohio

Now ya know
They take that shait seriously

so sorry. Hope shes dealing with all this ok. Probably quite the trigger for her.


All is well -- I'm glad I pushed this guys name outta my head cause she doesn't need a dad in prison for murder

He'll get his due.
What really gets me is the behind the scenes story of this situation --- We have prosecutors kids from that town that were involved in this whole ordeal ---
Haven't heard much about that

strange  huh?
 
2013-03-19 12:33:58 PM  
From reading this thread, I have learned that the only appropriate way to deal with rapists is to castrate/kill them. Our culture is way too violent and way too hypocritical.
 
2013-03-19 12:34:38 PM  

PunGent: the ha ha guy: ADHD Librarian: In a situation where someone is impaired by alcohol (yay, teenage party), they are unable to (by law in most jurisdictions) consent to a sexual encounter. If both participants are impaired, how does a legal system decide which one is the rapist?


Easy. The FBI says men can't be victims of rape, therefore it's impossible for the woman to be a rapist.

http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/cjis/ucr/frequently-asked-questions/ucr_ fa qs
For UCR reporting purposes, can a male be raped?

No. The UCR Program defines forcible rape as "The carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will" (p. 19). In addition, "By definition, sexual attacks on males are excluded from the rape category and must be classified as assaults or other sex offenses depending on the nature of the crime and the extent of injury".


You skipped 20)  "By definition, sexual attacks on males are excluded from the rape category and must be classified as assaults or other sex offenses depending on the nature of the crime and the extent of injury"



I didn't skip it, you skipped reading it in my post.
 
2013-03-19 12:39:47 PM  

Seasons I'v Withered: My daughter was raped by a football player @ 14 . You know what the cops said? But --- But hes a star football player,do you really want to do this?

Farking Canton ,Ohio

Now ya know
They take that shait seriously


And that's exactly what i was talking about earlier... if the rapist had been a basement dwelling D&D nerd, the police would have raided the house in full SWAT gear and it wouldn't have made national news because no one cares about the skeevy D&D nerd and he doesn't contribute to the reputation or success of the school and by proxy the city, where as Bret McQuaterback the Rapist gets community cover up for his rapes because he's the local celebrity, and everyone knows that when you try and expose a flaw in a greek hero, it's going to make the news and then the shiat storm begins...
 
2013-03-19 12:45:11 PM  

CeroX: Seasons I'v Withered: My daughter was raped by a football player @ 14 . You know what the cops said? But --- But hes a star football player,do you really want to do this?

Farking Canton ,Ohio

Now ya know
They take that shait seriously

And that's exactly what i was talking about earlier... if the rapist had been a basement dwelling D&D nerd, the police would have raided the house in full SWAT gear and it wouldn't have made national news because no one cares about the skeevy D&D nerd and he doesn't contribute to the reputation or success of the school and by proxy the city, where as Bret McQuaterback the Rapist gets community cover up for his rapes because he's the local celebrity, and everyone knows that when you try and expose a flaw in a greek hero, it's going to make the news and then the shiat storm begins...


But he's the quarterback.  It can't possibly be rape.  What girl says no to the quarterback?
 
2013-03-19 12:46:44 PM  

GAT_00: Benevolent Misanthrope: Snarfangel: You're mad because I used "misanthropic" in a sentence, aren't you.

No, I'm mad because of the double standard of a rape case.  Not at you.

BTW, though - and this is not snark, it's a continuation on your point - do you think things would be different if it were a case of a man being raped?  I thought men were really terrible to male rape victims.

As bad as it still is for women who are victims of rape, it is actually worse if a man gets raped by a woman.  The almost universal reaction is of disbelief.

Add this to the fact that some women have been shown to simply cry rape if they regretted a decision to sleep with someone because it would ruin a relationship, or simply cry it for attention, and there are still severe problems all around.  Women get harassed for making a claim quite often, and other women discredit real claims by falsely crying rape without any real consequence.

And even with all of that, it's still better than it was 10 years ago.  Pretty sad state all around.


Oh lovely, the "my victimhood is so much worse than yours" b.s. followed by a healthy helping of MRA propaganda b.s.
How about we all just say it probably really sucks for everyone,  and stop trying to compare victimhood wangs. Can we do that?
 
2013-03-19 12:47:19 PM  
Ugh! I have read through this entire thread..I think I need some mind bleach. I don't care how drunk you are, and yeah, you should not be getting that farkin drunk...in no way do you deserve to be assaulted. And the fact that they took pics, tweeted etc, just tells me that they were somehow proud of what they did to this girl. And I do not care if she was the biggest slut in the county..you still don't do that.

There is a culture out there that allows a certain lee-way to kids who are talented in their sports. I see it all the time. Where someone would get a rec for expulsion due to excessive tardies/absences..the athlete might get a pass and a warning. Anyone else..better have someone who can intervene for you, who knows your home life is shiat...otherwise you get booted.

There is never an excuse to sexually abuse someone. Period. And for the by-standers..if she had stopped breathing would you have sat there and watched her die?
 
2013-03-19 12:47:58 PM  

jso2897: If you're sober enough to get a hardon, you're sober enough to be responsible for what you do with it. If you are sober enough to control and dictate what happens, you are responsible for what happens. The point is that if two individuals are REALLY equally "incapacitated. by definition, neither can do anything to the other. If one of them CAN, they are not equally incapacitated.
Theoretically, I guess there COULD be a real-world scenario where that was the case, but I haven't heard of one. I don't think we are talking about a real thing here.


as Jorn the Younger: said "you don't have to be "passed out drunk" to be unable to consent, you only have to be "impaired", to legally be unable to consent."

From a legal standpoint you could be sober enough to fark but still too drunk to consent.
I also find it disappointing that my attempt at gender-neutral language has still lead to you making it all about the hardon. It is going to make it bloody hard not to sound like one of those 'oh, woe is me, the law hates me because I am a man' sad sacks. But I really did try to make this not just about the penis (yes, I am aware that most rapists are men and most rape victims are women. I am also aware that most men are not rapists).
Also, working with young people, I can safely say that a situation where both participants are too drunk to (legally) consent is a real thing. I do find it interesting that you seem to suggest that the degree of intoxication could be a determining factor and I wonder if that is true in a legal context. Certainly I can see that working as a moral argument, but legal/moral are not always the same thing.
You also talk about who is doing something 'TO' whom. And, again, in that case there is a certain (moral) clarity. I was more curious about a situation where someone was doing something 'WITH' someone else.

I am already hating myself for saying it, but...
The idea that If you're sober enough to get a hardon, you're sober enough to be responsible for what you do with it. seems a somewhat curious one from a physiological standpoint. I would certainly suggest that is it is possible to sustain an erection long after the point where one would not be held legally responsible for a contract signed whilst drunk. One could sustain a sexual performance long after the point where driving would be both illegal and irresponsible.

Now (to cleanse my soul somewhat from that moment of sounding like an apologist) I need to point out that being too drunk to make a rational decision does not (and should not) absolve someone of the consequences of deciding to drive home from the pub. Not too long ago "I was drunk" was a defence if you caused a car accident. As a society though, we decided that was not good enough, likewise being drunk is no excuse for unwanted sexual acts. Never, not even a little bit.
 
2013-03-19 12:48:36 PM  
Can anyone clarify what exactly happened during "the act"?  All the news reports I've read throw the word "rape" around like candy at a parade, and then don't actually talk about what legally constituted the rape.  The NYT summary indicates one of the boys played with her titties and stuck his finger in her hooha.  Did one of them actually use their penis and penetrate her butthole or hooha?

And I'm going to pose a question, or discussion instigation, which will completely piss off a bunch of people and probably have me labeled a rape apologist or some other BS.  But here's the moral conundrum I'm posing, based on what I know about the actual act, and some assumptions to make it more arguable:

Apparently the girl was completely unconscious and unaware of what was going on and she didn't have any recollection of the act.
Assume the guy(s) penetrated her with his dong in her butthole/hooha, but not excessively or forcibly, perhaps gently, in such a way that resulted in no physical damage to the girl.
This results in a situation where, after the act, the girl is completely emotionally/mentally and physically unaffected and unharmed by the act. If you didn't tell her it happened, she'd have no clue it ever happened.  Her future life would be unaffected by the act.  We're talking just the act here and the effect of the act, not the effect of the social media blowup and trial, etc.
In such a situation (given the above assumptions) is the act morally wrong?  Has the girl been wronged?  Should the guy(s) be penalized?  How significantly?

Is the above situation any morally different than: drawing a penis on your passed out friend's forehead?  shaving your friend's head hair off while they're passed out drunk?  clipping your friend's toenails while they're passed out drunk?

If you ignore moral preconceptions, is it any different than the above scenarios?
 
2013-03-19 12:55:07 PM  
My daughter was raped by a football player @ 14 . You know what the cops said? But --- But hes a star football player,do you really want to do this?

Farking Canton ,Ohio

Now ya know
They take that shait seriously


My daughter was raped by Barack Obama when she was 11.
The cops just laughed and then beat us nearly to death. This is America

True story!!!
 
2013-03-19 12:55:44 PM  

Bontesla: liam76: Bontesla: How would you classify Paterno's crimes

He was informed of an "incident" by McQueery.  The police were called.

We don't knwo the severity of the incident (McQueery has changed his story about what he told him).

Legally Paterno did what was required.

Morally, especially for a guy who is touted as a "Hero" for doing the right thing, and making sure his role as an educator was #1, he failed miserably, but he never broke any laws.

A great lawyer is a damned good investment

//you're right. an unlikely scenario isn't sufficient to establish the necessary criteria for guilt in the court of law. But Goddammitsomuch.
/// but I can't believe people actually buy that story.


Why believe th guy who changed his story?

jso2897: And you can still find people who think the NCAA was "too harsh" in punishing that "community".


NCAA completely overstepped their bounds.

They took actions that directly punished students that had abaoslutly nothing to do with what happened.
 
2013-03-19 01:00:54 PM  

jso2897: Actually, no. In most places, you don't have to be "passed out drunk" to be unable to consent, you only have to be "impaired", to legally be unable to consent.

If you're sober enough to get a hardon, you're sober enough to be responsible for what you do with it.


Consider lesbian rape.
 
2013-03-19 01:04:10 PM  

thisone: Dafatone: GAT_00: Add this to the fact that some women have been shown to simply cry rape if they regretted a decision to sleep with someone because it would ruin a relationship, or simply cry it for attention, and there are still severe problems all around.

Someday we'll have a thread on this subject where "cry rape" doesn't get brought up.

Someday.

I'm female, I have a friend who has been raped. My ex was accused of rape by a woman who, as we found out, had a history of "crying rape" or sexual assault whenever she was fired from a job.

farked up, entitled people do exist and instead of just getting thrown out of court she should have been thrown in jail. I've no doubt she's just gone on to do it again.

My ex just wanted the whole thing over with, he was so broken from having to go through it.


Oh well then, your cool-story-sis vignette here proves every strawman argument about crying rape that there ever was, eh?
 
2013-03-19 01:06:28 PM  

CeroX: ... the law in some places says that a woman who has had any alcohol or judgement impairing drugs within a certain span of time is incapable of consenting to sex, but in the same area the exact opposite is true for men...


I am loving the way you combine seemingly sane statements like the important thing being law, not personal opinions with the wahhhgarble bullshiat (personal opinion) I quoted above.

What is the exact opposite of this? If a sober woman forces herself on a drunk man the law says that is ok?
The EXACT opposite might be "a man who has had any alcohol or judgement impairing drugs within a certain span of time must consent to sex" (OK, I know I'm being a pedant there).

Sober person A has sex with drunk person B. Person A has committed a rape (or sexual assault, depending on the legal terminology of your jurisdiction). The genders of persons A and B are irrelevant to the law. To quote you yourself "Just come out and admit that you are incapable of having a rational objective conversation about rape and politely excuse yourself from the conversation"
 
2013-03-19 01:10:20 PM  

precious_crotchflake: Oh lovely, the "my victimhood is so much worse than yours" b.s. followed by a healthy helping of MRA propaganda b.s.
How about we all just say it probably really sucks for everyone,  and stop trying to compare victimhood wangs. Can we do that?



When a woman presses charges against a man for rape, the man usually goes to jail.

When a man presses charges against a woman for rape, the police will usually threaten the man with filing a false police report.

Nobody is arguing that the action itself is worse for men (I'd argue that it's worse for women), but men are practically unable to press charges in the first place.
 
2013-03-19 01:12:38 PM  
ExperianScaresCthulhu:As for drawing on a drunken person, the drunken person did not consent.  By making exceptions to the rule, one confuses the rules.  Either all shenanigans involving the drunken are off-limits, or none are.  Trying to parse shiat with 'well, this isn't as bad as this' always leads to differences of opinions about what's a Big Deal and what isn't.

Teh fark? Did you just equate a drawn mustache with digital penetration?
 
2013-03-19 01:16:48 PM  
Dafatone: GAT_00: Add this to the fact that some women have been shown to simply cry rape if they regretted a decision to sleep with someone because it would ruin a relationship, or simply cry it for attention, and there are still severe problems all around.

Someday we'll have a thread on this subject where "cry rape" doesn't get brought up.

Someday.

I'm female, I have a friend who has been raped. My ex was accused of rape by a woman who, as we found out, had a history of "crying rape" or sexual assault whenever she was fired from a job.

farked up, entitled people do exist and instead of just getting thrown out of court she should have been thrown in jail. I've no doubt she's just gone on to do it again.

My ex just wanted the whole thing over with, he was so broken from having to go through it.

Oh well then, your cool-story-sis vignette here proves every strawman argument about crying rape that there ever was, eh?



Yes! Discard any and all "cool stories" that might go against your rigidly held beliefs culled from others' "cool stories"
 
2013-03-19 01:19:43 PM  

ExperianScaresCthulhu: quickdraw: ExperianScaresCthulhu: lacydog: http://publicshaming.tumblr.com/

This has to be the saddest tumblr I have ever found. Humanity blows.

They can try, but they can't hide the number of women who say

Take responsibility for yourself and your own actions.

and

Don't get blackout drunk.

So dont get drunk, rape someone, video tape it and forget you did it later?

Sounds like good advice.

Don't get blackout drunk, period.

Don't get drunk.

Don't willingly place yourself in bad situations for god knows what reason, multiple times.

Don't play with fire when it comes to waking up in strange situations. The first time, you're an idiot but you can learn from it.  The second time, you must actively want it.  The third and fourth and subsequent times, you must be actively seeking out such situations.. again for god knows what reasons.  Probably the same ones which led you to be well known for getting blackout drunk in your little community.

The boys were stupid.

She, however, is NOT to be let off the hook.

Again, this is a chick who had morning after regrets because she couldn't pull the 'deny deny deny' card herself.  There was proof she ended up with the short end of the stick when she went looking for the trouble she ended up finding.

If there is no investigation of this chick's home life and if she is not put into drug and alcohol rehab, some other dude -- maybe even a silly ass white knight currently saying she's blameless -- is going to end up on the short end of a future stick in relation to her.

/but i forogt: women are eternally blameless


hmmm, I had you farkied as "not an asshole" for some reason, which makes me think you're either trolling now or I need to update the label.  I'll leave you at "Ass or troll?" with a light orange for now.
 
2013-03-19 01:21:45 PM  

doubled99: Dafatone: GAT_00: Add this to the fact that some women have been shown to simply cry rape if they regretted a decision to sleep with someone because it would ruin a relationship, or simply cry it for attention, and there are still severe problems all around.

Someday we'll have a thread on this subject where "cry rape" doesn't get brought up.

Someday.

I'm female, I have a friend who has been raped. My ex was accused of rape by a woman who, as we found out, had a history of "crying rape" or sexual assault whenever she was fired from a job.

farked up, entitled people do exist and instead of just getting thrown out of court she should have been thrown in jail. I've no doubt she's just gone on to do it again.

My ex just wanted the whole thing over with, he was so broken from having to go through it.

Oh well then, your cool-story-sis vignette here proves every strawman argument about crying rape that there ever was, eh?


Yes! Discard any and all "cool stories" that might go against your rigidly held beliefs culled from others' "cool stories"


Yeah, cuz that's way worse than thinking your one experience should hold as a general assumption.
 
2013-03-19 01:21:55 PM  

nickerj1: Can anyone clarify what exactly happened during "the act"?  All the news reports I've read throw the word "rape" around like candy at a parade, and then don't actually talk about what legally constituted the rape.  The NYT summary indicates one of the boys played with her titties and stuck his finger in her hooha.  Did one of them actually use their penis and penetrate her butthole or hooha?

And I'm going to pose a question, or discussion instigation, which will completely piss off a bunch of people and probably have me labeled a rape apologist or some other BS.  But here's the moral conundrum I'm posing, based on what I know about the actual act, and some assumptions to make it more arguable:

Apparently the girl was completely unconscious and unaware of what was going on and she didn't have any recollection of the act.
Assume the guy(s) penetrated her with his dong in her butthole/hooha, but not excessively or forcibly, perhaps gently, in such a way that resulted in no physical damage to the girl.
This results in a situation where, after the act, the girl is completely emotionally/mentally and physically unaffected and unharmed by the act. If you didn't tell her it happened, she'd have no clue it ever happened.  Her future life would be unaffected by the act.  We're talking just the act here and the effect of the act, not the effect of the social media blowup and trial, etc.
In such a situation (given the above assumptions) is the act morally wrong?  Has the girl been wronged?  Should the guy(s) be penalized?  How significantly?

Is the above situation any morally different than: drawing a penis on your passed out friend's forehead?  shaving your friend's head hair off while they're passed out drunk?  clipping your friend's toenails while they're passed out drunk?

If you ignore moral preconceptions, is it any different than the above scenarios?


It seems from reading this thread that plenty of US jurisdictions define rape in such a way that there must be penetration. Lets leave that to the courts to decide, but I am delusional enough to hope that we can all agree that Sexual Assault is wrong?
Can't we?
Now, lets look at the difference between sexual assault and shaving someone's head.
So far as I know, there are no significant diseases one can catch from getting an unwanted haircut. So, there is one moral difference.
Also, if we allow football stars to go around groping unconscious girls because they won't remember, what do we do when one girl wasn't quite drunk enough and remembers some of the abuse? I suspect there is also a moral aspect in giving people the incentive to get the person they want to see naked drunk enough that they won't remember. Would you not agree?
A potential risk that the number of deaths by alcohol poisoning might spike quite significantly in communities where this was acceptable behaviour.
As for her future life being unaffected by the act. That is manifestly untrue, despite her lack of awareness there are many other people who ARE aware of what happened and these events will impact on the treatment she receives from others in her community. Plus, as she is unaware of the events she will be powerless to influence the opinions of others about the events. Unable to defend herself, unable to let people know she did not consent and that she is not the person they are imagining she is.

As for your question of should the perpetrators be punished, Let me quote

Jizz Master Zero: It's really very simple: the object of your desire doesn't have to say no, they have to say yes.

If there is no yes from the one you lust after then you deserve the full force of the law.

/but I hope you knew that already and are just a massive douche-like troll.
 
2013-03-19 01:23:49 PM  

the ha ha guy: precious_crotchflake: Oh lovely, the "my victimhood is so much worse than yours" b.s. followed by a healthy helping of MRA propaganda b.s.
How about we all just say it probably really sucks for everyone,  and stop trying to compare victimhood wangs. Can we do that?


When a woman presses charges against a man for rape, the man usually goes to jail.

When a man presses charges against a woman for rape, the police will usually threaten the man with filing a false police report.

Nobody is arguing that the action itself is worse for men (I'd argue that it's worse for women), but men are practically unable to press charges in the first place.


Actually, GAT_00 really DID argue that it's worse for men.  Quoted verbatim.
 
2013-03-19 01:24:51 PM  

cardex: not defending the guys


Yes, you are.

It's pretty hard to "consent" or "say no" or do much of anything blameworthy when you're farking unconscious.

So, have you heard that one of these fine student-athletes offered three dollars to any of his teammates who would piss on the girl while she was vomiting in the street?  And that more than a few got their three dollars?

Not that you would "defend" such people, heaven forbid.
 
2013-03-19 01:26:08 PM  

nickerj1: If you ignore moral preconceptions, is it any different than the above scenarios?


absolutely... because there are levels of intent... they are all violations of personal space, but rape is, at its core, one of the deepest violations of a person's body...

apples and oranges... they are both fruit, but that's where the similarities end...

Drawing a penis in sharpie on a persons face and raping a person are both violations of a person's body, but that is where the similarities end...

It's really kind of a silly question because i don't believe any woman wouldn't know if she's been violated unless there is some serious shiat going on, drugs or whatever...
 
2013-03-19 01:30:43 PM  

ADHD Librarian: What is the exact opposite of this? If a sober woman forces herself on a drunk man the law says that is ok?


I'm not saying this is true for all areas... but as stated above: By definition, sexual attacks on males are excluded from the rape

That's the law for some areas, not my opinion... if it's forced or coerced it's rape... Not exactly being overly emotional here, so i don't understand the sudden hate... I agree with you, so if i worded something badly feel free to correct it...
 
2013-03-19 01:34:16 PM  

justinguarini4ever: From reading this thread, I have learned that the only appropriate way to deal with rapists is to castrate/kill them. Our culture is way too violent and way too hypocritical.


Recidivism rates do drop sharply when that is applied.
 
2013-03-19 01:36:06 PM  

vudukungfu: justinguarini4ever: From reading this thread, I have learned that the only appropriate way to deal with rapists is to castrate/kill them. Our culture is way too violent and way too hypocritical.

Recidivism rates do drop sharply when that is applied.


But rape is about power, not sex.  So even if you cut their junk off, they still gonna rape you with a cucumber, ya know, for the powerz.
 
2013-03-19 01:43:20 PM  

the ha ha guy: When a woman presses charges against a man for rape, the man usually goes to jail.

When a man presses charges against a woman for rape, the police will usually threaten the man with filing a false police report.


Your 'facts' are manifestly untrue. The conviction rate where the victim is male is higher than when the victim is female. Now, there are all sorts of reasons why this may be the case and it is possible to play all sorts of games with statistics, but the word 'usually' is certainly wrong.
It seems though, that in both cases there is a less than 50% conviction rate (not less than 50% reported, less than 50% of those which go to trial. Experiences in your nation may vary, the clearest data I found from a quick search was British).
 
Displayed 50 of 505 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report