Ohio rape case...a slippery slope?

[Quantum Windbag]

You've probably all heard about the Ohio juveniles convicted of raping a young woman too intoxicated to give consent. If not, the story is here:

Two teens found guilty in Steubenville rape case - CNN.com

While I think it was MONUMENTALLY stupid of those boys to take pictures of the drunk girl and post them on the internet, I must admit, at the risk of sounding cold, I'm not sure I support the rape conviction.

I don't want to "blame" the victim but on the other hand, nobody forced her to drink herself into oblivion. That was her choice, one that any one knows can lead to unintended and negative consequences. But that's not really my point.

My point is that while these boys, who were also drunk, messed with this girl (no penile penetration), I'm not sure I'd call it rape. While the girl never "consented" to relations, nor did she protest or ever utter a "no" or "stop".

My concern is about the NEXT time two drunks kids have at it. Have we come to a point where the girl can now claim rape because she never gave explicit consent? That's going to result in a lot of innocent boys branded for life as a pervert and that's wrong.

I say if you get so drunk you are unable to voice opposition to another horny teenager fingering your girly parts, you should probably focus on drinking less and not the actions of the drunk boy, all of whom deal with raging testosterone. Of course it's rape if the girl says 'no' but now it's rape if the girl doesn't say 'yes'? What next, signed consent before any sexual relations?!

I don't know, if it was my boy that did that, I'd punish him for sure, but I don't see imposing what is effectively a lifetime sentence of 'sex offender' that will ensure he never gets a good job or any opportunity for advancement. It just doesn't seem right to me. If it was my daughter, I wouldn't allow her to blame the boys. I'd reprimand her for being so damn irresponsible in the first place.

What say you? Am I off base here? I admit to not have a well formed opinion on this one. It just doesn't feel right to me.

She was flat out unconscious, they actually Tweeted that they fucked a dead girl. Getting drunk and passing out is not an invitation for someone else to fuck you, end of conversation.

 

[syrenn]

You've probably all heard about the Ohio juveniles convicted of raping a young woman too intoxicated to give consent. If not, the story is here:

Two teens found guilty in Steubenville rape case - CNN.com

While I think it was MONUMENTALLY stupid of those boys to take pictures of the drunk girl and post them on the internet, I must admit, at the risk of sounding cold, I'm not sure I support the rape conviction.

I don't want to "blame" the victim but on the other hand, nobody forced her to drink herself into oblivion. That was her choice, one that any one knows can lead to unintended and negative consequences. But that's not really my point.

My point is that while these boys, who were also drunk, messed with this girl (no penile penetration), I'm not sure I'd call it rape. While the girl never "consented" to relations, nor did she protest or ever utter a "no" or "stop".

My concern is about the NEXT time two drunks kids have at it. Have we come to a point where the girl can now claim rape because she never gave explicit consent? That's going to result in a lot of innocent boys branded for life as a pervert and that's wrong.

I say if you get so drunk you are unable to voice opposition to another horny teenager fingering your girly parts, you should probably focus on drinking less and not the actions of the drunk boy, all of whom deal with raging testosterone. Of course it's rape if the girl says 'no' but now it's rape if the girl doesn't say 'yes'? What next, signed consent before any sexual relations?!

I don't know, if it was my boy that did that, I'd punish him for sure, but I don't see imposing what is effectively a lifetime sentence of 'sex offender' that will ensure he never gets a good job or any opportunity for advancement. It just doesn't seem right to me. If it was my daughter, I wouldn't allow her to blame the boys. I'd reprimand her for being so damn irresponsible in the first place.

What say you? Am I off base here? I admit to not have a well formed opinion on this one. It just doesn't feel right to me.

She was flat out unconscious, they actually Tweeted that they fucked a dead girl. Getting drunk and passing out is not an invitation for someone else to fuck you, end of conversation.

it is rather disturbing that some people dont understand that point.

 

[Zona]

There is no evidence she was unconscious at the time the boy touched her with his finger.

Nobody got pissed on.

Laughing at someone should NEVER be against the law.

In any case, you didn't address the point. Are we now going to say that if a woman doesn't give specific consent to sex, her partner is guilty of rape?

I just don't buy it.

You are wrong on every level. They have her passed.put on film. They did piss on her. They have audio.of them saying she is passed out. You know what, as a father of a daughter, I say fuck you.

As you're apparently a father incapable of raising a daughter to not drink herself into a state of unconsciousness, I say right back at ya pal.

and if she did, I still dont want your son sexually assaulting her, pissing on her and video taping her.

If she drank and passed out, I want her to be left alone and not violated. Then when she was sober, I would deal with her. Unmolested.

Get it?

 

[Contumacious]

You are off, on many different levels. The boys' actions were indefensible. Someone being unconscious is not a license to rape her, or piss on her, nor laugh about her being dead.

A lifetime sentence as a sex offender is too lenient. It is not enough of a deterrent to keep other boys from just having fun at someone else's expense.

"Testimony from Elayna Andres, a sober, 17-year-old girl who witnessed the alleged incident described the victim as someone who had just forcibly declined an offer for a safe ride back to her friends and away from the boys, who had walked to the door before stumbling to the ground and who was not passed out, even though she was believed to be intoxicated.

"She was conscious," Andres testified. In fact, the girl wasn't actually carried anywhere like that, testimony concluded. The guys put her down after the photo was snapped. And Andres wasn't alarmed enough to prevent them all from leaving together".

.

 

[syrenn]

You are off, on many different levels. The boys' actions were indefensible. Someone being unconscious is not a license to rape her, or piss on her, nor laugh about her being dead.

A lifetime sentence as a sex offender is too lenient. It is not enough of a deterrent to keep other boys from just having fun at someone else's expense.

"Testimony from Elayna Andres, a sober, 17-year-old girl who witnessed the alleged incident described the victim as someone who had just forcibly declined an offer for a safe ride back to her friends and away from the boys, who had walked to the door before stumbling to the ground and who was not passed out, even though she was believed to be intoxicated.

"She was conscious," Andres testified. In fact, the girl wasn't actually carried anywhere like that, testimony concluded. The guys put her down after the photo was snapped. And Andres wasn't alarmed enough to prevent them all from leaving together".

.

How about the manufacture and distribution of child pornography?

 

[Michelle420]

You are off, on many different levels. The boys' actions were indefensible. Someone being unconscious is not a license to rape her, or piss on her, nor laugh about her being dead.

A lifetime sentence as a sex offender is too lenient. It is not enough of a deterrent to keep other boys from just having fun at someone else's expense.

"Testimony from Elayna Andres, a sober, 17-year-old girl who witnessed the alleged incident described the victim as someone who had just forcibly declined an offer for a safe ride back to her friends and away from the boys, who had walked to the door before stumbling to the ground and who was not passed out, even though she was believed to be intoxicated.

"She was conscious," Andres testified. In fact, the girl wasn't actually carried anywhere like that, testimony concluded. The guys put her down after the photo was snapped. And Andres wasn't alarmed enough to prevent them all from leaving together".

.

Fast-forward to Aug. 11, 2012 when two high school football players in Steubenville, Ohio, carried around a teenage girl to a series of parties, took pictures of themselves raping her in various settings, then bragged about their crime on social media. The hormone-driven boys were especially hyped up after a win, when rapist and quarterback Trent Mays tweeted post-victory, "Party at jake howarths!!!! Huge party!!! Banger!!!!" The day after, he tweeted, "Some of these "nice dudes" need ta shut the hell up." The following day Mays tweeted, "Ya see, what had happened was..." followed by "Nothing even happened ppl seriously need to shut up."

Despite attempts by the football-proud community to cover up the story, a cell of the hacker collective Anonymous called "KnightSec" unleashed Operation Roll Red Roll, leaking a 12-minute video of the rapists and their friends laughing about their crime, even underscoring the fact that it was a rape as they drunkenly laughed about the unconscious teenager being unable to wake up despite a "wang in the butthole." Before Anonymous seized the Twitter account of Michael Nodianos, the boy talking in the video, they took a screenshot of him commenting on a picture of the unconscious rape victim by saying, "Song of the night is definitely Rape Me by Nirvana."

"Several witnesses said that once outside, the girl needed to stop in the street because she was sick again. "She throws up on her blouse and takes her blouse off," Ma'lik said. "And then she asked for something to drink and I gave her my jacket to cover her up."

Carl Gibson: Patriarchy Dominates Media's Steubenville Coverage

 

[Contumacious]

You are off, on many different levels. The boys' actions were indefensible. Someone being unconscious is not a license to rape her, or piss on her, nor laugh about her being dead.

A lifetime sentence as a sex offender is too lenient. It is not enough of a deterrent to keep other boys from just having fun at someone else's expense.

"Testimony from Elayna Andres, a sober, 17-year-old girl who witnessed the alleged incident described the victim as someone who had just forcibly declined an offer for a safe ride back to her friends and away from the boys, who had walked to the door before stumbling to the ground and who was not passed out, even though she was believed to be intoxicated.

"She was conscious," Andres testified. In fact, the girl wasn't actually carried anywhere like that, testimony concluded. The guys put her down after the photo was snapped. And Andres wasn't alarmed enough to prevent them all from leaving together".

.

How about the manufacture and distribution of child pornography?

That is a bullshit religious crime.

taking her picture in no way hurts her.

.

 

[syrenn]

"Testimony from Elayna Andres, a sober, 17-year-old girl who witnessed the alleged incident described the victim as someone who had just forcibly declined an offer for a safe ride back to her friends and away from the boys, who had walked to the door before stumbling to the ground and who was not passed out, even though she was believed to be intoxicated.

"She was conscious," Andres testified. In fact, the girl wasn't actually carried anywhere like that, testimony concluded. The guys put her down after the photo was snapped. And Andres wasn't alarmed enough to prevent them all from leaving together".

.

How about the manufacture and distribution of child pornography?

That is a bullshit religious crime.

taking her picture in no way hurts her.

.

ya think? Child pron is a religious crime?


dont get caught then...... cuz each image you have in your possession...each image you are caught transmitting.... carries about 5 years.

 

[Contumacious]

How about the manufacture and distribution of child pornography?

That is a bullshit religious crime.

taking her picture in no way hurts her.

.

ya think? Child pron is a religious crime?


dont get caught then...... cuz each image you have in your possession...each image you are caught transmitting.... carries about 5 years.

No , you are cuckoo, . You did not, and could not, identify the harm, You are merely parroting the Talibaners.

.

 

[syrenn]

That is a bullshit religious crime.

taking her picture in no way hurts her.

.

ya think? Child pron is a religious crime?


dont get caught then...... cuz each image you have in your possession...each image you are caught transmitting.... carries about 5 years.

No , you are cuckoo, . You did not, and could not, identify the harm, You are merely parroting the Talibaners.

.

You dont know much about the law do you.

 

[Noomi]

I am not talking about being passed out drunk, that is obvious, but when a woman is drunk the law gives her the option to claim that she was too drunk to make the decision to have sex, but the man, who may be just as drunk, is held liable not only for having sex, but is guilty of having raped her.

Exactly. Double standards.

 

[pinqy]

but when a woman is drunk the law gives her the option to claim that she was too drunk to make the decision to have sex, but the man, who may be just as drunk, is held liable not only for having sex, but is guilty of having raped her.

You're mistaken on the law. While laws are by state, in most states the standard is along the lines of physical helplessness or mental inacapacity. You can be drunk to the point where you do not understand what is happening and/or do not have the will to physically resist or say no while still being concsious. So that's rape. "I'm so drunk, let's have sex" is consent. I've never heard of a case where drunkent consensual sex was ever ruled rape. If you're claiming that happens frequently, can you demostrate this?

The main difference is acting versus being acted upon. If Person A (male or female, doesn't matter) ACTIVELY pursues sexual acts with person B, then consent by A is given. The question is whether or not B is aware of what's happening and/or has the capacity to resist or say no.

Again, I've never heard a successful prosecution of "Oh, that was a bad decision, I didn't mean it so it was rape."

 

[Contumacious]

I am not talking about being passed out drunk, that is obvious, but when a woman is drunk the law gives her the option to claim that she was too drunk to make the decision to have sex, but the man, who may be just as drunk, is held liable not only for having sex, but is guilty of having raped her.

Exactly. Double standards.

It is bizarre that the only time that the fascists are concerned about consent is when sexual relations between a man or a woman are involved.

I guess is easy to destroy the lives of two poor boys in Ohio but not those of the government bureaucrats who consistently transgress upon our rights.

.

 

[pinqy]

I guess is easy to destroy the lives of two poor boys in Ohio
.

Are you claiming that they did nothing wrong and should face no punishment? That's the only way I see to claim that their lives were destroyed. My opinion is they destroyed their own lives when they decided to become rapists.

 

[editec]

I don't want to "blame" the victim but on the other hand, nobody forced her to drink herself into oblivion.

So basically what you're telling us is that RAPE is a suitable punishment for any women who gets drunk?

Would you mete out the same punishment to men who get drunk?

Have you ever been drunk?

How would you feel to discover that you were gang raped while you were drunk?

Not only were they GANG rapists, but they were so proud of having been rapists that they felt free to announce it to the world.

You want your sister, daughter or mother to share this world with THEM?

They ought to be hanged.

And YOU ought to be ashamed of yourself.

 

[NYcarbineer]

I don't want to "blame" the victim but on the other hand, nobody forced her to drink herself into oblivion.

So basically what you're telling us is that RAPE is a suitable punishment for any women who gets drunk?

Would you mete out the same punishment to men who get drunk?

Have you ever been drunk?

How would you feel to discover that you were gang raped while you were drunk?

Not only were they GANG rapists, but they were so proud of having been rapists that they felt free to announce it to the world.

You want your sister, daughter or mother to share this world with THEM?

They ought to be hanged.

And YOU ought to be ashamed of yourself.

This is not meant to disagree with you but there is a bit of inconsistency in the law in that a woman in certain circumstances can be considered raped when she has sex while drunk because she's considered not responsible for her actions,

but nowhere else in the law that I can think of does intoxication serve to remove one's responsibility for one's actions. Drunk driving for example.

 

[DGS49]

While what these boys did was deplorable and deserves stiff punishment, it is an example of an over-zealous legislature defining a broad range of offensive conduct under the banner of "rape," and treating all such behavior is though it were equally wrong.

Neither of these boys had or attempted to have sexual intercourse with the girl. They apparently could have, but they didn't. The acts of "digital penetration" were, one supposes, an attempt to wake her up in the hope that she would then consent to have some form of sex. But that didn't happen.

A few fine points in response to points raised above: (A) A minor cannot give consent to sexual intercourse, even if she tries. I'm not sure whether this did not come into the case here because Ohio makes an exception for teens of comparable age, or she was old enough to give consent. (B) It is not at all unusual for a female to wake up from a drunken stupor with someone she feels she would never have consented to have sex with, only to claim, retroactively, that she never gave consent, and thus she was "raped." The only reason more of these cases don't come into public view is because prosecutors hate to take on "he said - she said" cases without physical evidence of force.

Bottom line, these boys deserve to be severely punished, but this ruinous sentence is out of proportion with the actual harm done - which was minimal. The girl was embarrassed and mortified, and she is partly responsible herself.

 

[Katzndogz]

I guess is easy to destroy the lives of two poor boys in Ohio
.

Are you claiming that they did nothing wrong and should face no punishment? That's the only way I see to claim that their lives were destroyed. My opinion is they destroyed their own lives when they decided to become rapists.

If you get right down to it. They didn't destroy their lives when they decided to be rapists. The girl didn't even know she was raped. They destroyed their lives when they decided to brag about it.

 

[AmyNation]

While what these boys did was deplorable and deserves stiff punishment, it is an example of an over-zealous legislature defining a broad range of offensive conduct under the banner of "rape," and treating all such behavior is though it were equally wrong.

Neither of these boys had or attempted to have sexual intercourse with the girl. They apparently could have, but they didn't. The acts of "digital penetration" were, one supposes, an attempt to wake her up in the hope that she would then consent to have some form of sex. But that didn't happen.

A few fine points in response to points raised above: (A) A minor cannot give consent to sexual intercourse, even if she tries. I'm not sure whether this did not come into the case here because Ohio makes an exception for teens of comparable age, or she was old enough to give consent. (B) It is not at all unusual for a female to wake up from a drunken stupor with someone she feels she would never have consented to have sex with, only to claim, retroactively, that she never gave consent, and thus she was "raped." The only reason more of these cases don't come into public view is because prosecutors hate to take on "he said - she said" cases without physical evidence of force.

Bottom line, these boys deserve to be severely punished, but this ruinous sentence is out of proportion with the actual harm done - which was minimal. The girl was embarrassed and mortified, and she is partly responsible herself.

Being stripped naked, vaginally violated, having naked photos of you distributed over the Internet, bets taken on who wants to piss on your unconscience body, and having party goers laugh about your rape is, "minimal harm" to you?




Dear god Id hate to know what you consider just regularly harmful.

 

[editec]

I don't want to "blame" the victim but on the other hand, nobody forced her to drink herself into oblivion.

So basically what you're telling us is that RAPE is a suitable punishment for any women who gets drunk?

Would you mete out the same punishment to men who get drunk?

Have you ever been drunk?

How would you feel to discover that you were gang raped while you were drunk?

Not only were they GANG rapists, but they were so proud of having been rapists that they felt free to announce it to the world.

You want your sister, daughter or mother to share this world with THEM?

They ought to be hanged.

And YOU ought to be ashamed of yourself.

This is not meant to disagree with you but there is a bit of inconsistency in the law in that a woman in certain circumstances can be considered raped when she has sex while drunk because she's considered not responsible for her actions,

She was unconscious.

but nowhere else in the law that I can think of does intoxication serve to remove one's responsibility for one's actions. Drunk driving for example.

Unconscious people do NOT take action.

Do you actually KNOW anything about this case?!

Educate yourself.