Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What matters is how the strong treats the vulnerable, because that's one hundred percent the choice and so one hundred percent the responsibility of the strong. It was Brock Turner's character that was put to the simplest of tests - protect, ignore, or violate? - and it was he who failed. And that fact remains no matter the rationalizations - his, his fathers', or yours.
BRAVO!!! Well said. Sadly that in general that has not been the rule among humanity.
There is no evidence of this though. They hadn't even met an hour before she was found behind the dumpster with him on top of her. No one at the party testified to seeing the two interacting. How did they go from complete strangers to him on top of her unconscious, half naked body in the alley in just one hour?
OK. But do you agree with my statement?
Assuming it is true that the situation began as consensual drunken foreplay, she bears some responsibility for what happened. And yes, he is guilty of a less serious crime than is a person who commits forcible rape.
I get the impression that most of the women posting here do not agree. Apparently it does not matter to them how a woman who alleges rape was behaving, whether or not she was drinking heavily with the accused, encouraging him, kissing him, touching him, or whatever. Such details have no bearing, in their minds, on the degree of guilt or appropriate punishment. In fact, it is putting an undue burden on the woman even to question her too closely about this.
Again. If she hadn't gotten drunk and passed out, he wouldn't have tried to have sex with her. She IS partially to blame for the situation.
Passing out drunk is ALWAYS a stupid thing to do. She could have passed out drunk by herself and a complete stranger could have raped her, or at the very least robbed her.
If he hadn't gone to the party he wouldn't have found her or raped her either. The circumstances leading to the event are borne equally by both parties. However at the time of the event they cannot be borne equally, because one was unconscious, and unconscious people cannot make conscious decisions, they're precluded from doing so because, well, they're unconscious.
She was raped by a complete stranger, at the time of the rape she didn't know this guy from Adam, the closest thing she had to knowing him was that he'd stuck his lips on her sister, did she receive that knowledge via common genetics? She only found out who he was after she woke up in Hospital undergoing her examination. I don't know about you, but someone sticking their lips on my sister without her consent isn't going to make them known to me, nor does being at the same party make them known to me.
Look how absolutely messed in the head do you need to be, if when you discover a 22 year old woman unconscious behind a dumpster, your first thought isn't to check their breathing, or call an ambulance, or get them to a place of safety, but to partially undress them (at least the fun parts) and have sex with them? It's so mindblowingly outrageous that I can't even fathom how anyone can defend this puke. It shows zero respect for other people as individual entities, makes me wonder about his entire mental state and how he relates to other people (or animals for that matter). I mean think about it, would you have this person in your home alone with a female member of the family asleep there? If your answer is no you wouldn't then you really shouldn't be defending him, and the judge really has no grounds to claim he is not a danger to others, because normal balanced people, even normal balanced drunks don't make their first choice of finding an unconscious stranger to be having sex with that strangers unconscious body.
So, if you are passed out, someone could do anything they wanted to you and it would be OK because you wouldn't remember what had happened when you woke up? That makes no sense. Following that logic, it would be OK for someone to squat in your house when you were on vacation, because you weren't even there and didn't even know what was going on in your house, or to "borrow" your car when you weren't using it without asking? And that's not even talking about a violation of someone's body, just inanimate belongings.
How about this - anyone who gets so drunk as to think it is ok to have sex with someone who is passed out holds responsibility for any horrible actions they may undertake while under the influence, and we don't need to make any excuses or feel sorry for them. Instead of just telling our girls that they ought not to drink enough to pass out, we should be teaching our young men that they shouldn't drink enough to lose control.
Quote:
Originally Posted by stan4
How much damage can she have if she was too drunk to remember? Finally, anyone who gets so drunk as to lose control of their faculties holds some responsibility for what happens to them.
I'll let your wife know it's ok to sleep with other guys as long as you only hear about it and don't witness it firsthand.
None of those are the same thing. I was talking about psychological damges she was claiming. Also, she was the older one here. If he was 23 and hanging out at a college party he did not belong at and she was 20 we would never hear the end of those facts.
I guess the judge feels the same way since he received a 6 month sentence.
Now what kind of punishment do you think the woman should receive for getting drunk?
She has been punished enough for her stupidity.
On the other hand, perhaps his parents should be taken to task for not raising their son properly.
Anyway, women should not count on men behaving and always doing the "right thing" when there is alcohol or drugs involved. I was going to add that caution should be used when the man is a new acquaintance, but unfortunately "date rape" is also a situation that is NOT at that all uncommon.
Women just have to be pro-active and not let their guard down at parties. They think they can play as hard as the boys, but they can't. Women also are more driven to want to make friends. So they start off being too nice to the guys they meet and this can give the wrong signals. One of the young woman at work does this all of the time. She loves talking to the guys and ignores the women. And while she is talking to the guys, it's all flirty talk... instead of talking to them like... people. She could be an accident waiting to happen.
So I think that it would be smart for all women to take a self defense course, the kind where they get to kick and punch a man in a padded suit. They should offer these classes in high school and college. Twenty years ago, I talked with a man that got mugged twice while walking near his apartment. The first time, he froze from the shock of being in that situation. But by the second attack, he was ready and mad. He bit his mugger in the hand hard and thwarted the robbery. So by taking a self defense class, a woman would be ready and her reflexes quicker.
I tell my nieces to be wary of men and not take everything they say at face value. They are not scared of men, but they know that flattery is a means to an end. I also tell them that my rule is that a man has to be best friend material first before he can be boyfriend/husband material. And I point out that all my boyfriends have been men I met while the sun was shining and no alcohol was involved, e.i. no romantic connections ever came out of a nightclub or party encounter. One of my boyfriends was a fellow bandmate, another a fellow antique dealer and my current boyfriend was met through motorsports activities.
Assuming it is true that the situation began as consensual drunken foreplay, she bears some responsibility for what happened.
I don't agree. Even if two people are engaging in foreplay, if one of them becomes unconscious that's when that activity should stop.
Who's into having sex with a body, anyway? I can think of a couple of serial killers who did. An unconscious person cannot give consent for the foreplay to continue, much less give consent to have sex.
Assuming it is true that the situation began as consensual drunken foreplay, she bears some responsibility for what happened. And yes, he is guilty of a less serious crime than is a person who commits forcible rape.
I get the impression that most of the women posting here do not agree. Apparently it does not matter to them how a woman who alleges rape was behaving, whether or not she was drinking heavily with the accused, encouraging him, kissing him, touching him, or whatever. Such details have no bearing, in their minds, on the degree of guilt or appropriate punishment. In fact, it is putting an undue burden on the woman even to question her too closely about this.
I don't agree with that statement either.
If you're getting jiggy with some chick, and she passes out, you don't then keep going. Where's your brain?
If she then wakes up behind a dumpster under the circumstances of this incident, then you would deserve everything you get, because you've been a complete moron.
Are you incapable of reading for comprehension or considering matters in the abstract?
Are you incapable of answering a simple question?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Are you incapable of reading for comprehension or considering matters in the abstract?
