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.
I'm a woman who has been taken advantage of before and this story doesn't make my internal alarms go off. Considering they were both young and drunk and there was quite a bit of flirting (ass slapping, going to a sex shop) beforehand, I can't agree that Tim is an *******.
Because going to a sex shop with a man means you give him consent to do whatever with your body when you are asleep. Where do you draw the line? her breasts? her genitals? penetration? Can Tim invite his friends too so they can feel this ***** that frequents sex shops?
No they were not just drunk, she was asleep and he admitted he saw her with her eyes closed several times and it's clear she was not responding because "Tim" admits she could have been asleep.
She faced the TV, so, he says, he couldn't see her eyes for most of this. When he could, they were closed, but this didn't worry him; he closed his for a while too. This all went on for an hour or so.
Why is it that so hard to understand for some of you? This is not a case of a woman not saying no. This is a man taking advantage of an unconscious woman who could not give consent and coming out with some lame excuse that he did not know she was asleep when he knew well she was not responsive and her eyes were closed.
Last edited by Sugah Ray; 07-24-2015 at 09:58 AM..
The reality is that there are many a.holes out there. Probably 2 out of 10 men would rape a woman if they knew they won't get caught. Women need to be aware of that and not put themselves in dangerous situations like these girl by drinking, sending mixed signals and inviting men to her home because one day they might run out of luck. Well I think she got lucky, she could have been more drunk or next time he could have drugged her.
You have a terrible outlook on the male sex.
Why would the guy feel her up while she was asleep? He's getting nothing out of it if she's asleep.
Why would the guy feel her up while she was asleep? He's getting nothing out of it if she's asleep.
Ever heard of Bill Cosby? I'm sure he got something out of that after raping more than 30+ women. Men sexually assaulting unconscious women is not something new.
And don't come with this "you have a terrible outlook on the male sex" garbage. Did you even read the post you quoted? I have been very clear that not all men do that, not even the majority.
Last edited by Sugah Ray; 07-24-2015 at 09:58 AM..
This may just be a difference in semantics, but I disagree that it's simply an "overcorrection" to abrogate the due-process rights of the accused. That is not OK any way you slice it. You can't make up for past wrongs by wronging more people in a different way.
This I agree with 100%. Sexual assault / rape is a crime. If someone files a complaint that a crime is committed, why is the legal system not utilized to adjudicate the claim? Then if the guy is found guilty, the school can expel him with a clean conscience and no tort liability.
I agree .
In my opinion this needs to be taken to the supreme court, it appears to be a breach of rights. We are supposed to be entitled to a fair trial, surely that means one conducted by fully trained professionals.
I don't know why you are getting all upset and aggressive about some a.hole who obviously can only get laid with women who are passed out. It seems to me you are biased against rape accusations and you are not even paying attention to what Tim said, which I assume are the facts.
I didn't make up the hour. It's on the article, it's the time frame Tim gave and he said "This all went on for an hour or so" right after he described how he assaulted her. The "hour or so" comment did not come after he said he was massaging her back. His words, not mine. He had time to touch several parts of her body and also saw that her eyes were closed SEVERAL TIMES. "I just closed mine too" How romantic...
Any normal person with no intellectual disability would have realized pretty quickly that someone is asleep when they are having sex. Sex is a very interactive activity and when normal men(not rapists) are having sex for the first time with a woman, they always check for her reaction and reciprocation because they know the woman might not be ready to move on to the next phase.
I don't know why she "froze" and for how long but it doesn't say she reciprocated. All we know is that Tim was "having fun" with some inert object that would not talk to him, touch him or even open her eyes. Maybe she felt fear or guilt when she woke up. Whatever the case was, that doesn't change the facts. He still sexually assaulted her in her sleep.
Ah so now he should have known because they were having sex?
As far as I understood the story, she was facing away from him so he did not see that she had fallen asleep. I don't always give my husband "affirmative consent" or "enthusiastic consent" before we have sex. A lot of it is nonverbal and was nonverbal even when we were dating. IMO, we live in a society that must always have a bad guy in every situation. I firmly believe that there are true misunderstandings and miscommunication. I think this story is an example of each.
Again, she was asleep. So she didn't contribute to a misunderstanding. She was unconscious! This is exactly why these new laws or guidelines exist. To avoid precisely this type of situation, or a situation where the "victim" is awake, but terrified and unable to protest. Or awake, but too drugged or inebriated to be able to protest. In some jurisdictions, initiating sex with a woman who has had too much to drink and is fading in and out of consciousness is illegal. This could be construed as one of those cases.
Because going to a sex shop with a man means you give him consent to do whatever with your body when you are asleep. Where do you draw the line? her breasts? her genitals? penetration? Can Tim invite his friends too so they can feel this ***** that frequents sex shops?
No they were not just drunk, she was asleep and he admitted he saw her with her eyes closed several times and it's clear she was not responding because "Tim" admits she could have been asleep.
She faced the TV, so, he says, he couldn't see her eyes for most of this. When he could, they were closed, but this didn't worry him; he closed his for a while too. This all went on for an hour or so.
Why is it that so hard to understand for some of you? This is not a case of a woman not saying no. This is a man taking advantage of an unconscious woman who could not give consent and coming out with some lame excuse that he did not know she was asleep when he knew well she was not responsive and her eyes were closed.
How do you know he realized she was asleep?! And no, I never said going to a sex shop gives someone else the right to do whatever he wanted to your body. I was talking about the context of the situation. Yes, context is VERY important.
Also, the "victim's" story was the same as the "perpetrator." So yes, she was turned towards the television. It is not abnormal to close one's eyes during intimacy.
I hope people would take understanding of freezing in fear very seriously. It is real. You cannot not talk, you cannot move.
"Freezing behavior or the Freeze Response is a reaction to specific stimuli, most commonly observed in prey animals. When a prey animal has been caught and completely overcome by the predator, it may still be possible for the prey to escape by feigning death so that the predator stops the attack."
But the freezing thing would first require that there is no way of escape or to communicate No to the other person. I have also read that it is a common response in women previously traumatized by abuse and possibly have PTSD. I would disagree that it is a common response in women who have no reason to panic.
The other aspect of this is that to be fair, we need to respect that there are two people here and realize that they both have rights. If she *was* awake- and frozen- like you mention, and YET it was never communicated to him to stop, is it not fair to say that he did not assault her?
Isn't there at least SOME burden of action on the part of the alleged victim to communicate "No" in a situation where she is awake and lucid? Or are men supposed to be mind readers or else perpetrators by default?
Again, she was asleep. So she didn't contribute to a misunderstanding. She was unconscious! This is exactly why these new laws or guidelines exist. To avoid precisely this type of situation, or a situation where the "victim" is awake, but terrified and unable to protest. Or awake, but too drugged or inebriated to be able to protest. In some jurisdictions, initiating sex with a woman who has had too much to drink and is fading in and out of consciousness is illegal. This could be construed as one of those cases.
But he didn't know she was asleep and they were BOTH drunk! Why was she terrified? He didn't realize she had fallen asleep.
But would simply touching her meet the label of "attack"? Was he much larger or stronger than her, forceful in his touching/manhandling, blocking her path/practically on top of her? If none of those things were true, I would disagree to labelling it an "attack" that could cause a freezing response.
I would continue that there IS a burden of responsibility on the alleged victim in a scenario devoid of intimidation to communicate NO before you label the man a rapist.
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.
And no, I never said going to a sex shop gives someone else the right to do whatever he wanted to your body. I was talking about the context of the situation. Yes, context is VERY important. 
