Quote:
Originally Posted by yankeegirl313
Why would you even want to go there? I mean, to just lay there, faking it, to see how far he would go?  Hhmmmm.... no, I don`t consider that rape.
|
I think you just gave Seeniorita her first real run for the money in my book of e-ffections!
The thing that I've noticed over and over in the first few pages of this thread (which is as far as I've read at this time) is that people seem to be willingly deliberating whether or not this constitutes rape...
-A - between a husband and a wife
-B - with her admitting she was half-awake, half-drunk and faking it in order to see how far he'd go
-C - with her admitting they were BOTH drunk.
I'm not saying one of these conditions or the other, I'm saying ALL of them TOGETHER -- and yet as of the point to which I've read thus far, no one has even bothered to question the husband's frame of mind, with the exception of professorsenator stating that it's semi-questionable based solely on
mens rea.
Let's even go ahead and look at those things I listed separately:
A. This act is between a husband and wife.
Now we just know a kajillion and one women LOVE to scream about how a man doesn't own a woman's body just because he's her husband -- and this is correct, but it's also
short-sighted because it completely disregards the fact of a little thing I like to call
PRECEDENCE.
While it's perfectly arguable that when both partners are awake and operating within their full mental capacity the woman has every right to say NO if she's not in the mood for sex. I'm not contending that for a single, solitary second. However, unless she's said NO on numerous occasions, thereby indicating that she considers not only coitus entirely her choice but her husband's sexual overtures potentially objectionable, she has set a precedence for willingness to enjoy sexual congress with this man on a repeated basis.
Some idiot is going to come back with how by virtue of intoxication and SEEMING incapacitation her ABILITY to say no was removed and therefore the act in question falls under the heading of involuntary on her part and forced on his part, THIS is where the whole notion of
mens rea comes into play BASED ON THE PRECEDENCE OF WILLING SEXUAL CONGRESS BETWEEN THESE PARTNERS.
It also brings us to...
B. This woman claims inebriation BUT also admits the capacity to judge her own actions enough to ACTIVELY fake it WITH the intent of seeing how far this man would go.
Some would argue based on the alleged (and I DO mean "alleged") viewpoint of the man in question, insisting that he was taking advantage of an unwilling partner. I call shenanigans, yet another case of responsibility on his part versus potential victim status on her part.
I contend that her willingness to continue "faking it" (per her admission) while
allowing him to carry out the act of sex on her equates to consent (she had the conscious capacity to fake it, she therefore had the conscious capacity to stop it if she actually objected) and dances dangerously along the border of
encouragement given the presence of both her conscious decision to go along with it rather than object (indicating an experimental curiosity, NEVER any indication of fear or desire to stop this), her admission of awareness despite her inebriation and the aforementioned precedence.
And finally...
C. Her admission that both parties were intoxicated. This includes HIM, much as many would prefer to pretend that as a man he was required to be responsible.
- intoxicated man in the comfort of his own home, therefore feeling secure
- intoxicated man with his willing partner, per the precedence of willing sex in their relationship history
- intoxicated man, indicating potentially impaired judgment on his part WHILE having no reason to assume she would be unwilling
She can judge her own level of intoxication with reasonably reliable accuracy, I think we can safely assume. She can judge his
perceived level of intoxication but without a BAT (blood alcohol test) she cannot reliably attest to his frame of mind or capacity for judgment.
Further, while she admits to being inebriated WHILE stating that she had the capacity to judge, it brings to mind the question of her judgmental reliability. She is certain she simply lay there as though unconscious (while faking it), but was the room dark, or could her husband see her clearly? Did she smile or make any noises which he might have taken as encouragement? (I know I've tried not to smile while pretending I was asleep; some people do it better than others, I find it difficult since I lack a poker-face.)
Since she admits lying there out of curiosity, was she potentially amused by this, possibly resulting in a smile, however slight? Even a slight smile might be misconstrued as encouragement from a partner whose judgment was, admittedly, impaired.
Yankeegirl has it right: Why would you even want to go there? It's the sexual equivalent of making a fake profile and flirting with your spouse online to see whether they'll flirt back with someone they believe a stranger. It lies somewhere between
a-ha, gotcha and entrapment of a questionable nature.
EDIT: I see by the 3rd page people were questioning this woman -- thank GOD for that!
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 would never call it rape. He is my husband for crying out loud and I sure was not protesting!!!!
