Total Posts:98|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Politics of Rape

YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 8:09:03 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
http://www.nytimes.com...

This is a very sensitive subject, and its one where people get so caught up in the politics of it all (and the delusional fantasy of "rape culture") that they lose sight of the bigger picture.
Tsar of DDO
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 8:48:40 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Do you mind helping me to determine what the bigger picture is, please? I don't understand...
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 8:49:19 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 8:48:40 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
Do you mind helping me to determine what the bigger picture is, please? I don't understand...

What do you think the best possible outcome was in that circumstance?
Tsar of DDO
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 8:59:09 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 8:49:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:48:40 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
Do you mind helping me to determine what the bigger picture is, please? I don't understand...

What do you think the best possible outcome was in that circumstance?

As the law is stated there could be no other outcome, only an assault charge can be made. Judgements are made by rule of law not vague intent. Unfortunately this is a travesty for the woman and the perv gets off Scott free. I see that law being changed in the near future.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:01:52 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 8:59:09 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:49:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:48:40 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
Do you mind helping me to determine what the bigger picture is, please? I don't understand...

What do you think the best possible outcome was in that circumstance?



As the law is stated there could be no other outcome, only an assault charge can be made. Judgements are made by rule of law not vague intent. Unfortunately this is a travesty for the woman and the perv gets off Scott free. I see that law being changed in the near future.

Why do you think this is a travesty?

What do you think happened there?
Tsar of DDO
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:08:15 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:01:52 PM, YYW wrote:

I typed out a response but exited the tab by accident... Sh!t. I'm on incognito. Lemme type it back. I think I see something. Unless it's different. Lemme retype it.
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
someloser
Posts: 1,377
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:10:14 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Rape has been (very stupidly) politicized for over 15 years now. Look at the histrionic reactions A Natural History of Rape got back in '00
Ego sum qui sum. Deus lo vult.

"America is ungovernable; those who served the revolution have plowed the sea." - Simon Bolivar

"A healthy nation is as unconscious of its nationality as a healthy man of his bones. But if you break a nation's nationality it will think of nothing else but getting it set again." - George Bernard Shaw
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:27:30 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 8:10:12 PM, YYW wrote:
http://www.ocdw.com...

That was a very good decision, in Oklahoma.

Looks like an incredibly dumb application of the rule of lenity.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:28:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 8:49:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:48:40 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
Do you mind helping me to determine what the bigger picture is, please? I don't understand...

What do you think the best possible outcome was in that circumstance?

So originally, I was going to pine you as a prick for trivializing rape, because rape is NEVER justifiable... EVER.

I noted these quotes from your first source:
"his 16-year-old accuser had been intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness."
"Witnesses said the girl had been drifting in and out of unconsciousness and had been unable to walk."
"The boy said the ensuing oral sex was consensual, but the girl told the police she did not remember anything else after being at the park, according to Oklahoma Watch. Tests later showed she had a blood-alcohol level of 0.341, more than four times the state"s legal limit for driving. The boy"s DNA was found on the girl"s body and around her mouth, according to court documents."

At first, I was going to rage at you because I thought what you were trying to say was that the girl was unconscious and this it was okay.

I got this video (at the side) that emphasizes that rape is wrong, and much like sex, you don't force someone to drink tea if they're unconscious because they can't consent to it.

Then, I decided to research the matter a little more myself, and discovered the following:

"There was absolutely no evidence of force or him doing anything to make this girl give him oral sex," Shannon McMurray (the defendant"s attorney) said, "other than she was too intoxicated to consent."
http://www.theguardian.com...

I was going to continue to rage because she's implying that there were no marks that the girl was forced into doing anything, albeit the girls' unconsciousness and thus, she wouldn't have been able to defend herself at all. In that case, the boy is still wrong for what he did.

Then, I realized,

"The two had been drinking in a Tulsa park with a group of friends when it became clear that the girl was badly intoxicated"
http://www.theguardian.com...

So the boy AND the girl were intoxicated at the time that the incident happened.

But then:

"Tests would later confirm that the young man"s DNA was found on the back of her leg and around her mouth. The boy claimed to investigators that the girl had consented to performing oral sex. The girl said she didn"t have any memories after leaving the park."
http://www.theguardian.com...

If the girl had no memory after leaving the park, then that would mean that the "DNA' would've gotten onto her after she left the park with him.

On the contrary, one site stated, "The rape charge was later dropped due to lack of evidence."
http://edition.cnn.com...

Benjamin Fu, director of the special victims unit for the Tulsa County District Attorney"s Office and the lead prosecutor on the case, called the decision absurd, and told CNN affiliate KTUL:
"I don"t believe that our legislators or our citizens believe that we as prosecutors or as a public should be focusing on the conduct or choices that a victim made in order to determine whether or not an assailant should face criminal liability."
http://ktla.com...

"In its ruling, the court dismissed the charge because unconsciousness and intoxication are not mentioned in the state's forcible sodomy law."
http://edition.cnn.com...

So essentially, your point is that the girl would've been intoxicated and not remember if she consented, right? The boy was also intoxicated and can't be blamed, right?

Well, I disagree. I think that if someone isn't in the right mind- intoxicated or unconscious- no act should be performed upon them, since they lack the ability to consent.

If the boy was intoxicated as well, he should not have engaged in any sexual relations with the girl, because she was unconscious.

Sex is like tea. Please refer to the video at the side, and follow it at all times --->
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:30:46 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:01:52 PM, YYW wrote:
Why do you think this is a travesty?

What do you think happened there?

Are you implying that the girl was trying to take advantage of the situation, because she doesn't remember to wrongfully accuse the boy?

If so, please refer to my above post^

Unconscious people can't consent to drinking tea, so you do not force tea down their throats. Obvious wrong is obvious?
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:33:12 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:01:52 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:59:09 PM, Peepette wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:49:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:48:40 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
Do you mind helping me to determine what the bigger picture is, please? I don't understand...

What do you think the best possible outcome was in that circumstance?



As the law is stated there could be no other outcome, only an assault charge can be made. Judgements are made by rule of law not vague intent. Unfortunately this is a travesty for the woman and the perv gets off Scott free. I see that law being changed in the near future.

Why do you think this is a travesty?

The woman was abused in a sexual manner without her consent. How can someone in a semi-comatose or blackout state make consent. Clearly this male took advantage of the situation.

What do you think happened there?
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:36:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 8:09:03 PM, YYW wrote:
This is a very sensitive subject, and its one where people get so caught up in the politics of it all (and the delusional fantasy of "rape culture") that they lose sight of the bigger picture.

I'd like some clarification. What exactly are you referring to as "rape culture"?
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:38:57 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
"Tests later showed she had a blood-alcohol level of 0.341, more than four times the state"s legal limit for driving."
http://www.nytimes.com...

If you're not in a position to drive, how are you in a position to consent?

"0.3 - 0.39: People can die at this level of intoxication. Their central nervous system has been severely depressed and may become unresponsive. The person may also lose control of their bladder so that they are incontinent of urine."
http://alcoholrehab.com...
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
Peepette
Posts: 1,237
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:47:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:28:46 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:49:19 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/30/2016 8:48:40 PM, ESocialBookworm wrote:
Do you mind helping me to determine what the bigger picture is, please? I don't understand...

What do you think the best possible outcome was in that circumstance?

So originally, I was going to pine you as a prick for trivializing rape, because rape is NEVER justifiable... EVER.

I noted these quotes from your first source:
"his 16-year-old accuser had been intoxicated to the point of unconsciousness."
"Witnesses said the girl had been drifting in and out of unconsciousness and had been unable to walk."
"The boy said the ensuing oral sex was consensual, but the girl told the police she did not remember anything else after being at the park, according to Oklahoma Watch. Tests later showed she had a blood-alcohol level of 0.341, more than four times the state"s legal limit for driving. The boy"s DNA was found on the girl"s body and around her mouth, according to court documents."

At first, I was going to rage at you because I thought what you were trying to say was that the girl was unconscious and this it was okay.

I got this video (at the side) that emphasizes that rape is wrong, and much like sex, you don't force someone to drink tea if they're unconscious because they can't consent to it.

Then, I decided to research the matter a little more myself, and discovered the following:

"There was absolutely no evidence of force or him doing anything to make this girl give him oral sex," Shannon McMurray (the defendant"s attorney) said, "other than she was too intoxicated to consent."
http://www.theguardian.com...

I was going to continue to rage because she's implying that there were no marks that the girl was forced into doing anything, albeit the girls' unconsciousness and thus, she wouldn't have been able to defend herself at all. In that case, the boy is still wrong for what he did.

Then, I realized,

"The two had been drinking in a Tulsa park with a group of friends when it became clear that the girl was badly intoxicated"
http://www.theguardian.com...

So the boy AND the girl were intoxicated at the time that the incident happened.

But then:

"Tests would later confirm that the young man"s DNA was found on the back of her leg and around her mouth. The boy claimed to investigators that the girl had consented to performing oral sex. The girl said she didn"t have any memories after leaving the park."
http://www.theguardian.com...

If the girl had no memory after leaving the park, then that would mean that the "DNA' would've gotten onto her after she left the park with him.

On the contrary, one site stated, "The rape charge was later dropped due to lack of evidence."
http://edition.cnn.com...

Benjamin Fu, director of the special victims unit for the Tulsa County District Attorney"s Office and the lead prosecutor on the case, called the decision absurd, and told CNN affiliate KTUL:
"I don"t believe that our legislators or our citizens believe that we as prosecutors or as a public should be focusing on the conduct or choices that a victim made in order to determine whether or not an assailant should face criminal liability."
http://ktla.com...

"In its ruling, the court dismissed the charge because unconsciousness and intoxication are not mentioned in the state's forcible sodomy law."
http://edition.cnn.com...

So essentially, your point is that the girl would've been intoxicated and not remember if she consented, right? The boy was also intoxicated and can't be blamed, right?

Well, I disagree. I think that if someone isn't in the right mind- intoxicated or unconscious- no act should be performed upon them, since they lack the ability to consent.

If the boy was intoxicated as well, he should not have engaged in any sexual relations with the girl, because she was unconscious.

Sex is like tea. Please refer to the video at the side, and follow it at all times --->

Well stated. Especially like the tea video used to make the point. No one can consent to anything while unconscious.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:51:34 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Why is a 16 year old getting "intoxicated?" I mean sure, perhaps the boy shouldn't have done that (I don't know the whole story -- not going to trust a news article), but wow: there's no responsibility.

As horrible as it looks, she really was asking for trouble by getting into that depraved state.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:56:56 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
It's amazing to me how every response so far (with one exception) is operating from the highly sexist and paternalistic idea that boys are responsible for the decisions that girls make, and that even the absence of evidence to convict is not a sufficient defense.

I'll make a more detailed post in a bit, though, because this is a real issue.

I'll reiterate my question, though:

Given what happened here... what would the best outcome have been?

Labeling a 16 year old kid who got drunk with another teenage kid who was also drink as a "perv" and a "sex offender"?

Here's the additional problem:

As the law is written, neither of them could have consented because both were inebriated, meaning that both engaged in sodomy and are equally culpable. But because we live in a society where paternalistic and sexist norms inform our judgment, we throw the boy under the bus and label the girl as the victim despite the total lack of sufficient evidence to confirm what happened.
Tsar of DDO
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 9:59:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:51:34 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
Why is a 16 year old getting "intoxicated?" I mean sure, perhaps the boy shouldn't have done that (I don't know the whole story -- not going to trust a news article), but wow: there's no responsibility.

As horrible as it looks, she really was asking for trouble by getting into that depraved state.

I appreciate how you're approaching this. Frankly, what happened here isn't something the law should have been involved in at all. There is no evidence of rape, forcible assault, or forcible penetration whatsoever. The fact that the prosecutor even brought charges here is an indication of his/her incompetence and prejudice towards boys.

When I was 16 I got drunk too. Kids make mistakes sometimes. What really is at issue is how we as a society are going to respond to those mistakes. Do we overreact like paternalistic sexists, or do we try to get to a point where we teach both kids who were involved to be more responsible?
Tsar of DDO
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 10:06:28 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
I was talking to some other people about this, who said that

1) We should be in control of our bodies, and never drink to the point of blacking out.
"You are then thus shirking responsibility for your own actions, and putting the onus on other people, who hold no responsibility over your person-hood and well being
as having that responsibility. "

By that logic, we should never drink at all so we don't put ourselves in a position to be raped.

I agree that we should never put ourselves in situations where we are in danger, i.e. she should have ensured she had a way to get home with people she trusted. But rape is NEVER justified. Ever.

Consent- yes.
Where there is no consent- rape.

2) The boy was also intoxicated and may not have known what he was doing

Which is debunked because he said it was consensual.

3) The boy was was also intoxicated and isn't a medical practitioner so he may not have known that she was incapable of giving consent.

This is kind of moronic (with all due respect.)

If I have a knife, and I want to penetrate you with my knife.
If you tell me 'no', and I penetrate you with my knife, I'm committing a crime.
If you're intoxicated and tell me 'yes' and I penetrate you with my knife, I'm committing a crime.
If you're intoxicated and tell me 'no' and I penetrate you with my knife, I'm committing a crime.
If I'm intoxicated, you tell me 'yes' and I penetrate you with my knife, I'm committing a crime.
If I'm intoxicated, you tell me 'no' and I penetrate you with my knife, I'm committing a crime.
If you're unconscious and I penetrate you with my knife, I'm committing a crime.

Why isn't it the same with sexual misdemeanors?
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 10:07:50 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:59:26 PM, YYW wrote:
At 4/30/2016 9:51:34 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
Why is a 16 year old getting "intoxicated?" I mean sure, perhaps the boy shouldn't have done that (I don't know the whole story -- not going to trust a news article), but wow: there's no responsibility.

As horrible as it looks, she really was asking for trouble by getting into that depraved state.

I appreciate how you're approaching this. Frankly, what happened here isn't something the law should have been involved in at all. There is no evidence of rape, forcible assault, or forcible penetration whatsoever. The fact that the prosecutor even brought charges here is an indication of his/her incompetence and prejudice towards boys.

Oh okay. I only skimmed through the article and didn't see that "there is no evidence of rape, forcible assault, or forcible penetration whatsoever".

I know that across the globe, rape laws are being watered-down to the point where if a woman/girl regrets the sex (during or after), or if a woman/girl has any alcohol in her, it's automatically rape. If, as you wrote, she did indeed have "prejudice towards boys", the system gives her immense power over them, during to the ridiculous laws.

So yeah, the law shouldn't have been involved -- you're right.


When I was 16 I got drunk too. Kids make mistakes sometimes. What really is at issue is how we as a society are going to respond to those mistakes. Do we overreact like paternalistic sexists, or do we try to get to a point where we teach both kids who were involved to be more responsible?

Ideally, we would teach both kids. However, the way the laws are set-up, they seem to absolve women/girls of a lot of responsibility, so they don't learn lessons. I'm not sure we're ever going to revert, either...
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
ESocialBookworm
Posts: 14,361
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 10:08:38 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:56:56 PM, YYW wrote:
It's amazing to me how every response so far (with one exception) is operating from the highly sexist and paternalistic idea that boys are responsible for the decisions that girls make, and that even the absence of evidence to convict is not a sufficient defense.

I'll make a more detailed post in a bit, though, because this is a real issue.

I'll reiterate my question, though:

Given what happened here... what would the best outcome have been?

Labeling a 16 year old kid who got drunk with another teenage kid who was also drink as a "perv" and a "sex offender"?

Here's the additional problem:

As the law is written, neither of them could have consented because both were inebriated, meaning that both engaged in sodomy and are equally culpable. But because we live in a society where paternalistic and sexist norms inform our judgment, we throw the boy under the bus and label the girl as the victim despite the total lack of sufficient evidence to confirm what happened.

I noted that they were both intoxicated. But the girl was slipping in and out of consciousness, in which case, she could not have given consent.

If the boy was not as intoxicated (since he was capable of driving), he should have engaged sexually with her.
Solonkr~
I don't care about whether an ideology is "necessary" or not,
I care about how to solve problems,
which is what everyone else should also care about.

Ken~
In essence, the world is fucked up and you can either ignore it, become cynical or bitter about it.

Me~
"BAILEY + SOLON = SAILEY
MY SHIP SAILEY MUST SAIL"

SCREW THAT SHIZ #BANNIE = BAILEY & ANNIE

P.S. Shipped Sailey before it was cannon bitches.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 10:18:25 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
"Forcible sodomy cannot occur where a victim is so intoxicated as to be completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation,"

Isn't this the definition of rape? I'm so confused. Since when is not being able to give one's consent equivalent to giving one's consent?

She was asking for trouble because she was drunk? Are you kidding? Most teenagers drink alcohol sometime before they are 21. Are you saying they all deserve to get raped? It would seem that YYW has been so traumatized by the social justice warriors that he's gone off the deep end.
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 10:22:26 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 9:56:56 PM, YYW wrote:
It's amazing to me how every response so far (with one exception) is operating from the highly sexist and paternalistic idea that boys are responsible for the decisions that girls make, and that even the absence of evidence to convict is not a sufficient defense.

I'm definitely not operating from that perspective.

Given what happened here... what would the best outcome have been?

I don't know all the evidence/facts, so I can't say what the best outcome would have been. But as a matter of common sense, it seems to me that "forcible sodomy" could occur when a victim is "intoxicated as to be completely unconscious." The judge chose not to allow that based on what appears to be the rule of lenity. If it were me, I'd have said this should go to trial, and at trial the facts could have been argued to the jury.

As the law is written, neither of them could have consented because both were inebriated, meaning that both engaged in sodomy and are equally culpable.

I haven't read the law, so I'm not sure if that's what it actually says.

That said, as a matter of policy, I think consent requires someone to be aware of what is happening. If someone is so inebriated that they are not aware of what is happening, they could not consent. From the facts, though, it appears that the boy was aware of what was going on and thus was capable of consent.

But because we live in a society where paternalistic and sexist norms inform our judgment, we throw the boy under the bus and label the girl as the victim despite the total lack of sufficient evidence to confirm what happened.

This raises some important points. I agree that there is a problem with a one-sided approach to the issue (i.e. an approach that singles women out). Both men and women have trouble proving they were raped, both have more trouble when they were inebriated, and that is a problem for both.

That said, your point about "lack of sufficient evidence to confirm what happened" raises the issue of "false rape accusations," and that's a separate problem, one that is virtually non-existence. I don't remember the exact number but something like 1% or less rape accusations are false. At the same time, rape is incredibly common. Given that data, and given the difficulty of proving rape but the pressing need of punishing rapists, there shouldn't be a presumption that rape accusations are false. That isn't sexist if the standard is applied to both genders, as it should be, and it's not paternalistic either, it simply recognizes that rape accusations shouldn't be presumed false.
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 10:25:16 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 10:18:25 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"Forcible sodomy cannot occur where a victim is so intoxicated as to be completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation,"

Isn't this the definition of rape? I'm so confused. Since when is not being able to give one's consent equivalent to giving one's consent?

The boy said that she gave consent (I'm not convinced she was unconscious the whole time). Does being drunk preclude you from being able to give consent? The law Kansas has seems to be weighted unfairly

"Kansas, for example, has a rape law that clearly states what Oklahoma"s does not: It includes a line for when the victim "is incapable of giving consent because of the effect of any alcoholic liquor, narcotic, drug or other substance.""

Apparently, any amount of alcohol is enough to prevent people from being able to give consent.


She was asking for trouble because she was drunk? Are you kidding?

Is she not? I would never get that drunk.

Most teenagers drink alcohol sometime before they are 21. Are you saying they all deserve to get raped? It would seem that YYW has been so traumatized by the social justice warriors that he's gone off the deep end.

No one would argue that anyone deserves to get raped, especially this silly 16 year old girl. However, we're not yet convinced that she was raped.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
FourTrouble
Posts: 12,757
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 10:27:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
YYW's comments have this bizarre undercurrent that something isn't rape if it doesn't conform to some sick fantasy he has of what a "real rape should be like." Both parties were drunk? Not rape, even if one party said no.

I must say, it takes a special human being to tell a rape victim, "No, I don't think you were actually raped, because even though you said 'no,' the other guy was drunk."
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,244
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 10:31:31 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 10:25:16 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/30/2016 10:18:25 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"Forcible sodomy cannot occur where a victim is so intoxicated as to be completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation,"

Isn't this the definition of rape? I'm so confused. Since when is not being able to give one's consent equivalent to giving one's consent?

The boy said that she gave consent (I'm not convinced she was unconscious the whole time). Does being drunk preclude you from being able to give consent? The law Kansas has seems to be weighted unfairly


You've entirely missed the point. The courts said that BECAUSE she was so drunk as to be ENTIRELY unconscious, she couldn't have been raped, by definition. In other words, because she wasn't around to say no, she wasn't raped. There aren't words to describe how idiotic that is.

"Kansas, for example, has a rape law that clearly states what Oklahoma"s does not: It includes a line for when the victim "is incapable of giving consent because of the effect of any alcoholic liquor, narcotic, drug or other substance.""

Apparently, any amount of alcohol is enough to prevent people from being able to give consent.


She was asking for trouble because she was drunk? Are you kidding?

Is she not? I would never get that drunk.


I wasn't taking issue with the claim per se, I was taking issue with how it was being used i.e., to excuse the act.

Most teenagers drink alcohol sometime before they are 21. Are you saying they all deserve to get raped? It would seem that YYW has been so traumatized by the social justice warriors that he's gone off the deep end.

No one would argue that anyone deserves to get raped, especially this silly 16 year old girl. However, we're not yet convinced that she was raped.

Obviously if she was not raped, then the boy shouldn't face charges. That's not even controversial.
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 10:32:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Let me tell you the story of what happened in this case:

RZM is a boy, who was born on November 21, 1997. He was charged with two counts on April 16, 2015 as a youthful offender (i) with first degree rape, or in the alternative, second degree rape, and (ii) forcible oral sodomy. That means that he was 17 years old when he was charged. The girl involved was 16.

We should be clear that this is not about narrative conformity. Just because there was DNA on the girl (and his DNA would have been found on him) does not mean that a rape or even a forcible penetration (sodomy, as defined by the statute) occurred. But, the court didn't even rule on the evidence, but on the definition the statute: what counts for forcible sodomy.

Critics of this decision label it as indicative of "gaps" in the legal system, and cry that anyone who supports this decision is some kind of victim blaming woman hater. Nothing could be further from the truth.

Boy and girl had been drinking. Boy was drunk, and girl was drink too. Boy volunteered while drunk to give girl a ride home. Girl was more drunk than boy, maybe, but the BAC levels have clearly been misinterpreted by everyone so far in this forum.

Alcohol does not immediately absorb into the body. It's metabolized slowly, meaning that she may not have been unconscious when the sex act began, because the alcohol she chose to consume may not have hit her yet. This is especially likely if she drank the booze fast, given that we already know that she had drank it in large quantity.

She's only 16, though, which means that she probably did not know how much alcohol she could safely consume, and didn't appreciate what impact the specific quantity of alcohol that she consumed would have on her. Boy, 17, probably didn't either.

The account that the girl had to be carried to the car may or may not have been true, but the fact that she may have had to be carried to the car does not mean either that she was unconscious or that she didn't know what she was doing. All we know is that her BAC when taken to a hospital (meaning probably about at least an hour or two for the alcohol to come into full force, and totally hit her system) was exceptionally high. We also know that it could not have been that high at the time of the alleged act of penetration.

What we know is that DNA was found on the back of the girls legs and mouth, however. That's what we know. We do not know where that DNA came from, though they probably made out (how the DNA would have gotten on her mouth, from saliva), and on the back of her legs, if she was being carried, from either his perspiration or a hair follicle or something. Again, all DNA means is that he at some point touched her. It does not mean that any illegal sex act occurred, as anyone who took evidence can tell you.

Later, girl wakes up and says that she can't remember leaving the park. Obviously she couldn't, she had consumed a tremendous amount of alcohol and blacked out. The fact that she blacked out doesn't mean, even, that she didn't **initiate** the sexual contact with him.

If I could only tell you the number of times that I've seen girls, who were very intoxicated, becoming extremely sexually aggressive in the way of wanting to "thank" the boy who brought her home. Happens every day, and it's not rape, because the so-called "victim" consents through acts which they do and/or perform.

What would have been evidence of forcible sodomy is if, for example, there were scratch marks on her scalp. That would have been some proof that he forced her, against her will, to perform oral sex on him. Additional evidence might have been his DNA under her fingernails, as would have been some evidence of her efforts to resist. Additional evidence might have been scratch marks on him, or bite marks on his anatomy, or even any kind of bruising on her body of any kind (as would have indicated his forcing her into some kind of physical position either against her will, or where she was too intoxicated to resist but was at the same time nothing but "dead weight" because she had at that point blacked out). Evidence that any item of her clothing was torn, too, would have even been "some" evidence of his culpability.

There was nothing. The physical evidence only confirms that he probably picked her up, and some part of his body came into contact with her mouth. She could have kissed him on the cheek and gotten his DNA on her lips. There is no physical evidence that a sex act even occurred.

The problem is that everybody's so ready to throw boys under the bus, to charge them with rape and then cry "wolf" when some bullsh!t charge appears to have come off as being under a technicality.

If any of the physical evidence I was suggesting was present at the scene or on the girl, the judges would have NEVER issued the kind of opinion they wrote, because the interpretation of the law wouldn't have been an issue, because the first count of the charge wouldn't have been dismissed. But because the first count was dismissed, and the specific ruling was issued as it was issued, I know that this prosecutor was totally incompetent. This is why prosecutors need not to be stupid, but this prosecutor was stupid, and he or she caused a lot of unnecessary harm to many people and will exacerbate an already toxic and highly politically charged discussion that should never even be taking place to begin with.
Tsar of DDO
EvanescentEfflorescence
Posts: 303
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 10:35:10 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
At 4/30/2016 10:31:31 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
At 4/30/2016 10:25:16 PM, EvanescentEfflorescence wrote:
At 4/30/2016 10:18:25 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
"Forcible sodomy cannot occur where a victim is so intoxicated as to be completely unconscious at the time of the sexual act of oral copulation,"

Isn't this the definition of rape? I'm so confused. Since when is not being able to give one's consent equivalent to giving one's consent?

The boy said that she gave consent (I'm not convinced she was unconscious the whole time). Does being drunk preclude you from being able to give consent? The law Kansas has seems to be weighted unfairly


You've entirely missed the point. The courts said that BECAUSE she was so drunk as to be ENTIRELY unconscious, she couldn't have been raped, by definition. In other words, because she wasn't around to say no, she wasn't raped. There aren't words to describe how idiotic that is.

I think I might have. I only skimmed the article -- should have read in full.


"Kansas, for example, has a rape law that clearly states what Oklahoma"s does not: It includes a line for when the victim "is incapable of giving consent because of the effect of any alcoholic liquor, narcotic, drug or other substance.""

Apparently, any amount of alcohol is enough to prevent people from being able to give consent.


She was asking for trouble because she was drunk? Are you kidding?

Is she not? I would never get that drunk.


I wasn't taking issue with the claim per se, I was taking issue with how it was being used i.e., to excuse the act.

Okay -- fair enough.


Most teenagers drink alcohol sometime before they are 21. Are you saying they all deserve to get raped? It would seem that YYW has been so traumatized by the social justice warriors that he's gone off the deep end.

No one would argue that anyone deserves to get raped, especially this silly 16 year old girl. However, we're not yet convinced that she was raped.

Obviously if she was not raped, then the boy shouldn't face charges. That's not even controversial.

Agreed.
Free vote -- short read. I've spent well over 15 hours researching abortion in the past week, so there might be something there for you. I recommend reading Con's counter-arguments first to come to a quick decisions, but the choice is all yours:

http://www.debate.org...

The opponent didn't respond:

http://www.debate.org...

No response:

http://www.debate.org...
Vox_Veritas
Posts: 7,071
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 10:44:05 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
@esocial: The girl may not remember now, but how do we know that at the time of the act she wasn't reciprocating his advances, intoxicated or not?
Call me Vox, the Resident Contrarian of debate.org.

The DDO Blog:
https://debatedotorg.wordpress.com...

#drinkthecoffeenotthekoolaid
YYW
Posts: 36,282
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
4/30/2016 10:45:43 PM
Posted: 7 months ago
Edit for Grammar/Clarity:

RZM is a boy, who was born on November 21, 1997. He was charged with two counts on April 16, 2015 as a youthful offender (i) with first degree rape, or in the alternative, second degree rape, and (ii) forcible oral sodomy. That means that he was 17 years old when he was charged. The girl involved was 16. Note that the first count was dismissed. Dismissal only happens when there is a total absence of evidence for the charge. That means that there was no evidence at all that a rape occurred, which means that each and every person who is posting from the assumption that a rape occurred is indulging in fantasy.

We should be clear that this is not about narrative conformity. Just because there was DNA on the girl (and his DNA would have been found on him) does not mean that a rape or even a forcible penetration (sodomy, as defined by the statute) occurred. The court didn't even rule on the evidence, but on the definition the statute: what counts for forcible sodomy. That only happened because there was no evidence for first or even second degree rape, meaning that the prosecutor brought a case against a kid for which there was no evidence, which means that the prosecutor was probably incompetent.

Critics of this decision label it as indicative of "gaps" in the legal system, and cry that anyone who supports this decision is some kind of victim blaming woman hater. Nothing could be further from the truth. This isn't about gaps. It's about whether society is going to be stupid and convict a person of rape based on a total lack of physical evidence and specious inferences and paternalistic and sexist assumptions about how boys are, or not going to be stupid and not indulge in that level of idiocy.

Here is the story of what happened in this case:

Boy and girl had been drinking. Boy was drunk, and girl was drink too. Boy volunteered while drunk to give girl a ride home. Girl was more drunk than boy, maybe, but the BAC levels have clearly been misinterpreted by everyone so far in this forum.

Alcohol does not immediately absorb into the body. It's metabolized slowly, meaning that she may not have been unconscious when the sex act began, because the alcohol she chose to consume may not have hit her yet. This is especially likely if she drank the booze fast, given that we already know that she had drank it in large quantity.

She's only 16, though, which means that she probably did not know how much alcohol she could safely consume, and didn't appreciate what impact the specific quantity of alcohol that she consumed would have on her. Boy, 17, probably didn't either.

The account that the girl had to be carried to the car may or may not have been true, but the fact that she may have had to be carried to the car does not mean either that she was unconscious or that she didn't know what she was doing. All we know is that her BAC when taken to a hospital (meaning probably about at least an hour or two for the alcohol to come into full force, and totally hit her system) was exceptionally high. We also know that it could not have been that high at the time of the alleged act of penetration.

What we know is that DNA was found on the back of the girls legs and mouth, however. That's what we know. We do not know where that DNA came from, though they probably made out (how the DNA would have gotten on her mouth, from saliva), and on the back of her legs, if she was being carried, from either his perspiration or a hair follicle or something. Again, all DNA means is that he at some point touched her. It does not mean that any illegal sex act occurred, as anyone who took evidence can tell you.

Later, girl wakes up and says that she can't remember leaving the park. Obviously she couldn't, she had consumed a tremendous amount of alcohol and blacked out. The fact that she blacked out doesn't mean, even, that she didn't **initiate** the sexual contact with him.

If I could only tell you the number of times that I've seen girls, who were very intoxicated, becoming extremely sexually aggressive in the way of wanting to "thank" the boy who brought her home. Happens every day, and it's not rape, because the so-called "victim" consents through acts which they do and/or perform.

What would have been evidence of forcible sodomy is if, for example, there were scratch marks on her scalp. That would have been some proof that he forced her, against her will, to perform oral sex on him. Additional evidence might have been his DNA under her fingernails, as would have been some evidence of her efforts to resist. Additional evidence might have been scratch marks on him, or bite marks on his anatomy, or even any kind of bruising on her body of any kind (as would have indicated his forcing her into some kind of physical position either against her will, or where she was too intoxicated to resist but was at the same time nothing but "dead weight" because she had at that point blacked out). Evidence that any item of her clothing was torn, too, would have even been "some" evidence of his culpability.

There was nothing. There was no physical evidence at all to even suggest that a sex act occurred. The physical evidence only confirms that he probably picked her up, and some part of his body came into contact with her mouth. She could have kissed him on the cheek and gotten his DNA on her lips. There was no other evidence that even tended to suggest that a sex act occurred.

The problem is that everybody's so ready to throw boys under the bus, to charge them with rape and then cry "wolf" when some bullsh!t charge appears to have come off as being under a technicality.

If any of the physical evidence I was suggesting was present at the scene or on the girl, the judges would have NEVER issued the kind of opinion they wrote, because the interpretation of the law wouldn't have been an issue, because the first count of the charge wouldn't have been dismissed. But because the first count was dismissed, and the specific ruling was issued as it was issued, I know that this prosecutor was totally incompetent. This is why prosecutors need not to be stupid, but this prosecutor was stupid, and he or she caused a lot of unnecessary harm to many people and will exacerbate an already toxic and highly politically charged discussion that should never even be taking place to begin with.
Tsar of DDO