Just curious how different people feel about this situation.
Scenerio A girl is at a party and has been 'talking' to one of the guys that is there. They haven't dated at all. Just have been talking on the phone because they met at a previous time where he got her number and kissed her goodbye. The guy asks the girl to go somewhere private. The girl follows and they start "hooking up" she puts a stop to it and tells the guy she doesn't want to go any further because shes really into him and doesn't want to mess it up. He says "We wont go any further than you want to". So eventually they stop and go back downstairs to the party. The girl ends up drinking MANY more beers and when the guy asks her to go upstairs she agrees. This time too drunk to stop what was tried earlier so it happens.
I just want your thoughts on this situation. Who's to blame. Did someone do wrong here? Were both parties completely at fault? No harm done? Just curious to what different people think about this situation.
ps. The guy doesn't call after the situation for two days. She brings it up to him online and asks what it meant and he said "i dont want a relationship right now"
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
Hmm, I don't know you very well - heck, I don't even know if you're a guy or a girl - but do you mind if I ask if this girl in the scenario is really you? Or the guy?
Posted by quidscribis (Member # 5124) on :
Excellent question, Corwin.
This would be one of the reasons I don't think drinking to excess is a good idea - people end up doing things they would otherwise say no to.
I think both parties were at fault. Her for drinking to excess and losing the ability to stop anything. Him for pushing her even though he knew how she felt and, most likely, for knowing that, as soon as it was all done, it would be over.
Yeah, I'm probably going to get flak for giving her some of the blame. Oh well.
Posted by Corwin (Member # 5705) on :
quote:Originally posted by quidscribis: Yeah, I'm probably going to get flak for giving her some of the blame. Oh well.
Not from me, you aren't. While I think the guy is more to blame in this situation, I also feel the girl wasn't making the smartest decision when she went with him in the first place, told him all that, and then drank herself to oblivion! Yeah, the guy lied about his intentions - although, I wonder exactly how drunk he was too... - but the girl definitely put herself in the spot.
quote:She brings it up to him online and asks what it meant and he said "i don't want a relationship right now".
Well, did he say he was looking for one in the first place? If not, he maybe just wanted to have fun at the party. That isn't an excuse for what he did, and yeah, he should have called. It's just that the girl shouldn't expect something that was never promised.
Edit: I'm also curios what exactly did the girl think about the whole situation.
Posted by Lupus (Member # 6516) on :
While the girl should not have gotten drunk...it is not a good idea to be impaired around people you are not 100% sure you can trust and going back upstairs was a bad idea, the guy was in the wrong, and if the girl reported him, he could be charged with rape. When someone says no, there is no excuse to continue. The fact that he waited until she was more inebriated is very disgusting in my opinion.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:the guy was in the wrong, and if the girl reported him, he could be charged with rape. When someone says no, there is no excuse to continue. The fact that he waited until she was more inebriated is very disgusting in my opinion.
Ah, but she also said "yes" and went willingly with him upstairs. And we don't know the state of his inebriation either, so if it is an excuse for her, it is also an excuse for him. No?
In other words, both are to blame. It's unlikely that the law is going to call it rape if she was capable of verbal communication and ambulatory immediately prior to the sex act.
Ultimately, it's not about blame, but about responsibility. In that respect, both of them made some serious errors in not knowing their sex partner's history, and, I assume, in not doing much to avoid pregnancy or spread of STDs, should those be an issue.
The guy is clearly an opportunistic &*%**, so we can add that black mark to his side of the ledger. But sadly, both are acting irresponsibly and could face serious problems as a result.
I hope they both learn from it, but it appears unlikely in the guy's case. At least the woman can, we hope, go away from this wiser and more careful of her own heart and body in the future.
PS: I admit I could be wrong about the "protection," and this could just all come down to a night of drunken passion with nothing more serious than a bruised ego to show for it. I'd call that learning the lesson about taking care of one's own heart (and not drinking to excess) cheaply, all things considered.
PPS: If the guy is as big a jerk as this scenario makes him out to be, he probably won't learn anything from it. It's sad, because going through life securing copulations under dubious circumstances and treading on other people's hearts is not really a good path. It probably makes him a little bit deader each time he "scores."
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: And we don't know the state of his inebriation either
That's the part that I was going to point out. Although the scenario tells us the girl had too much to drink before going upstairs, it doesn't mention the state of the boy.
If he was just as drunk, they could have BOTH been doing something they would have otherwise regretted doing (something they would have avoided if they had both been sober). If he was dead sober and she was rolling drunk, that brings a different perspective.
But, yeah -- why I gave up alcohol 20 years ago could pretty much be entailed in that story above.
FG
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
A girl got very drunk at a party held at a group house that I lived in during my Sophomore year of college. She spent the night in my bed.
All I got out of it was a new mattress.
PS: I was away on a trip and so my room was used by my housemates as the drunk tank. They realized the error of their ways and got me a new mattress and cleaned up a bit before I got home.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Posted by Evie3217 (Member # 5426) on :
I think it is the fault of both parties involved. I agree that the boy was wrong in asking her to go upstairs, but I also think that the girl should not have had so much to drink. It's common knowledge that alcohol impedes on one's judgement and she should have known this before hand. I would have thought that she would have considered this before getting completely drunk.
This is not to excuse the boy's actions either, although I would be curious to know how much he had to drink as well. If he was completely sober, than I would say he took advantage of her vulnerable state. He should have respected the fact that she didn't want to hook up with him.
Another thing to consider - the reason the boy didn't call afterwards could have possibly been because he was embarassed. I just thought I would put that out there.
Posted by Teshi (Member # 5024) on :
quote:It's unlikely that the law is going to call it rape if she was capable of verbal communication and ambulatory immediately prior to the sex act.
I was led to believe in high school phys ed that this isn't the case and that if the girl is drunk and didn't/doesn't want it, even if her mind "changed" during oblivion, that it is still rape. Yes, that does put the blame almost entirely on the boy, who was no doubt also drunk, but I was always taught that a drunken "yes" is not a "yes" at all.
(This is a hypothetical thing for me, though, and I think the drunken "yes" = no idea is mostly for the male half of the population).
Also, although I agree strongly that the girl should have had friends around who knew she didn't want, should not have drunk so much and all that, the boy should have definately realised that she was very drunk. I hate to say this because I do not drink very often at all and never in this sort of situation and I would be very aware of this kind of thing, but to suggest that a girl who has said no has to restrict her drinking (again, this basically crosses all my principles) because the "no" responsibility is entirely on her. If you know what I mean. Especially if the boy was fairly aware of what was going on.
However, this boy could hypothetically have been planning this all evening though. All day. All week. Then it would look much more like rape.
I think the intent (which of course we cannot know) is very important here and can change a harmless mistake into something more nasty.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
But, what is "drunk?" I assume that the boy's attorney is going to have a few questions to ask about whether the boy gave her drinks, whether she has ever been drunk and had sex before, whether she remembers saying yes, whether she recalls walking up the stairs...then, I assume, there'd be witnesses to her walking upstairs with him, etc., etc.
Proving that he planned it would also be pretty darned hard.
Sure, a good prosecutor could make it LOOK like rape, but a good defense attorney could make it look consensual, with or without the assistance of alcohol.
And since the defendant has the right to face his accusers, but can avoid taking the stand altogether, it'd probably be a pretty rough trial for the girl should it come to that.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Having said all that, if she believes she was raped, then she should report it to the police immediately and talk to a victim's aide about the best course of action.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
It's rape. She said no. Who cares if she went back upstairs with him? Maybe she just wanted more non-sex hooking up.
-pH
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
Also, if you're drunk, you can't legally consent to sex anyway. So no matter what, if you're drunk, it's technically rape.
-pH
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
what if they're both drunk? can he legally consent to sex?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
I don't know about that one. I just know that a girl who is intoxicated technically cannot consent to sex.
-pH
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
But a boy who is intoxicated can?
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
One more great reason not to drink!
How many people who only drink in moderation have occasionally, rarely, or even once, drunk more than they intended? In my experience it seems to be pretty close to 100%. When you are imbibing something that impairs your judgement, then you can't trust your judgement totally on when to quit imbibing.
How many alcoholics realized they would become alcoholics when they first began drinking? This number seems to be very close to 0%.
How much pain, suffering, death, illness, damaged lives, damaged childhoods, damaged relationships, domestic violence, car wrecks, injury, domestic vomiting, domestic maudlin scenes, domestic peeing all over oneself and the bed, carpet, drapes, etc. has come about because of alcohol? This amount is considerably large.
How much money is spent on alcohol that could better be spent on food, rent, utilties, books and education, medical care, good nutrition, and other positive benefits for the people involved? This amount is also rather great.
What is the payoff? What pleasure, joy, benefit, goodness, happiness, health, nutrition does alcohol bring? I can only see one, "Wooooooo Paaaaarty! Yipee!"
Is that a good trade off? All of you people who make choices in your lives. Do you see anything missing in my reasoning? What choice makes most sense for you?
I am so happy to be part of a community of people who choose not to use alcohol. I wish my family for generations had been part of such a community and had so chosen. Much damage and pain could have been avoided thereby.
I'm sorry this happened to that couple. I hope that less damage was done than might have been. I hope they recover from the damage that was done and choose better in the future.
Posted by ifmyheartcouldbeat (Member # 8692) on :
In responce to your many questions
I am a girl.
I am the girl in this situation.
Don't worry i'm not offended by anything you say because this is why i put this story out there. I honestly want to know and understand both sides of the issue because i'm thoroughly perplexed to what to feel about it.
I know one feeling i do feel is 'Used' that is unmistaken.
He had less to drink than me for sure, but he wasn't completely sober either.
I also know that drinking more was a bad decision.
You're right Corwin on the relationship comment. He never said anything about a relationship or a promise of one. BUT he also knew how I felt about him.
Also after the initial relationship conversation we didn't talk for about a week. Then he calls and is like "so you wanna hang out?" and he didn't understand why i was confused.
Then one of my friends saw him at a party and said that he was trying to get with this other girl all night long. hmm.
The reason a lot of you dont know me all too well is because i'm more of a reader than a poster.
Let me know if you want to know anything more..
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
<<<<<ifmyheartcouldbeat>>>>> I'm very sorry. He sounds like a real cad. It's amazing how well some of those can simulate being interesting, genuine people long enough to make people care about them.
Posted by ifmyheartcouldbeat (Member # 8692) on :
It is amazing. Truly amazing.
Posted by Megan (Member # 5290) on :
I believe there's some pretty concrete evidence about the health benefits (mostly heart-related, IIRC) of drinking red wine on a semi-regular basis. I realize that's not your point, but just playing devil's advocate regarding the whole alcohol thing.
On topic. ((((ifmyheartcouldbeat))))
At the very least, I hope you see a counselor about what happened. Good luck.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: The guy is clearly an opportunistic &*%**, so we can add that black mark to his side of the ledger. But sadly, both are acting irresponsibly and could face serious problems as a result.
Not to say that this is the case here, but I believe that there are some women who drink for an excuse to be irresponsible, too.
quote: The girl ends up drinking MANY more beers and when the guy asks her to go upstairs she agrees. This time too drunk to stop what was tried earlier so it happens.
As someone who regularly drank to excess for many years, I never got to the point where I didn't know what I was doing. While I have known some people who supposedly drank a lot and were capable of speech and movement, but claimed later to be 'blacked out' and not remember anything, imho this is kind of a rarity and takes some practice to achieve this level of drunkenness. I don't get the sense from the above that that's the case here, and in any case, if you get that drunk, it's still you that's pouring the booze down your throat.
My point here is not to be a dick, but to say that you shouldn't blame the booze for your bad decisions. As Bob mentiond, the guy is no more a 'cad' for asking you to sleep with him while drunk than you are for agreeing to it.
Don't blame the booze. You did it. He did it. That's all.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:Do you see anything missing in my reasoning?
I do, actually. A few things. First, by your reasoning, nobody should ever do anything frivolous that has any significant risk of harm. Second, that some (or even many) people use something horribly irresponsibly does not imply that I will. Other people use alcohol more irresponsibly than I do, so I should refrain from doing something I enjoy? That doesn't follow.
Have I ever been way too drunk? Yup. However, I've also done way more stupid things while sober than the absolute stupidest things I've ever done while drunk. The only real difference is that in some cases my drunken stupidity was followed by some vomiting. I don't see that as sufficient reason not to drink. Also, what portion of the people who have consumed an alcoholic beverage have gone on to become alcoholics, versus (say) the portion of the people who have smoked a cigarette who have gone on to become chain smokers? Alcohol can be addictive if you're not careful, but I see that as a reason to surround yourself with people who care about you and will say something if they see you developing a problem. I don't see the potential for alcoholism as sufficient reason not to drink either.
In this particular case, both parties made mistakes and those mistakes were compounded by alcohol. The guy was a jerk, the girl made a bad decision. She should put this particular jerk behind her and think nothing more of him.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: Also, if you're drunk, you can't legally consent to sex anyway. So no matter what, if you're drunk, it's technically rape.
So, all those women who slept with me while I was drunk were raping me? I don't think so.
Posted by Olivet (Member # 1104) on :
If somebody is stupid and careless, leaving their car running -- door open with the keys in it -- They are guilty of being reckless and stupid.
Somebody comes along and drives off... sure, the temptation was incredible, but they are still guilty of stealing a car.
I don't know the legalities involved. Both are responsible for their actions, but the guy is a *expletive deleted*
Sorry (((ifmyheartcouldbeat))). Be more careful next time. and remember Time Wounds all Heels.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
quote:but claimed later to be 'blacked out' and not remember anything, imho this is kind of a rarity and takes some practice to achieve this level of drunkenness
actually, i don't think it is all that hard to acheive. I have a pretty low tolerance, being short and a relatively new drinker. I have gotten very drunk and done really stupid things that i was aware i was doing when i did them. And then there were the two occasions where i apparently did things that i have absolutely no memory of -- one of which was so obviously ridiculous and bizarre that i couldn't possibly have been, you know, "blocking it out" or pretending it didn't happen.
As to this scenario, i know that imhcb remembers what happened, and was conscious during everything, so she's not really wondering "is this/isn't this rape?" so much as "did he take advantage of me/was it equal fault?"
Personally, while i think it was equal fault up until sex entered the equation -- the guy had obviously been made aware of her disinterest in anything more serious than making out. And since he was definitely a) less drunk and b) aware of her feelings, then he's definitely *more* in the wrong.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Her feelings apparently changed and you don't know that he was 'less drunk', whatever that means. Do not people change their minds? Further, if she was so drunk, how does she really know how much that he drank?
Look, drunk doesn't change anything. He could have been stone, cold sober, and if she said 'yes', well, sorry. She said yes. I refuse to give people who alter their minds themselves an excuse. Does the guy have an excuse for being drunk and sleeping with her? No. None of you give him that, why give it to her?
If she were sober and changed her mind, not one of you would defend her. But because she was 'drunk' and he was 'less drunk', this guy somehow magically made her say 'yes' and then not say no after that? I'm sorry, but that is pure bs and sexist. They are both equally at fault.
Posted by Kwea (Member # 2199) on :
It wasn't rape, not according to the law anyway, at least not in a provable way, IMO.
I would still go see a counsler about it though, although make sure you tell them the same thing you told us here that you changed your mind..they will be eager to call it rape, but just because they do doesn't mean a court or a judge would agree with them.
He is an a$$, and there is no excuse for his actions...but being drunk is no excuse for yours either, at least not completely.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I don't think it was rape.
I do think that he is not a gentleman. It seems to me that his failing was to not save you from yourself. There is a scene in The Philadelphi Story where Katharine Hepburn wakes up with a hangover and looks in horror at Jimmy Stewart. "Did we...?" "No, you weren't yourself."
That's what we wish would happen. This guy did take the advantage handed to him. I'm sorry - I do think it would be good to talk to somebody professional about it, and to make sure it doesn't happen again.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Just to reiterate again -- she doesn't think it *was* rape. See my above post for further clarification! Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I found the quote from Philadelphia Story:
quote:George denounces her, feeling that he has a right to be angry: "On the very eve of your wedding, an affair with another man." Finally, Mike speaks up, confirming that nothing happened:
Mike: Kittredge, it may interest you to know that the so-called 'affair' consisted of exactly two kisses and a rather late swim...All of which I thoroughly enjoyed, and the memory of which I wouldn't part with for anything... After which I deposited Tracy on her bed in her room, and promptly returned down here to you two - which doubtless you'll remember.
Looking at Mike all the time during the explanation, Tracy is astonished and suddenly turns on him - angrily demanding to know why he didn't advance on her. He replies that he didn't want to take advantage of her when she was drunk:
Tracy: Why? Was I so unattractive, so distant, so forbidding, or something - that - ? George: Well, this is fine talk, too. Tracy: I'm asking a question. Mike: You were extremely attractive, and as for distant and forbidding, on the contrary. But you also were a little the worse - or the better - for wine, and there are rules about that. Tracy: Thank you, Mike. I think men are wonderful.
Wow, that movie should be in the fantasy section.
I understand, Leo. I think it is equal fault all the way through, though. Just as a "No" does not mean "Yes", a "No" once does not trump over a "Yes" later. He shouldn't have taken advantage of the situation, but if she went along willingly, even while drunk, then it isn't fair to charge him with being more at fault.
I sort of resent the suggestion otherwise, actually. It is infantilizing - that he should have known she didn't want to even though she was going along with it. It holds him more responsible for her actions than she is. That's not just unfair to him, it's demeaning to her.
In other words, while it's romantic, that scene in A Philadelphia Story is more than a little sexist. Tracy is not a child that needs to be sheltered from her own decisions - growing up means knowing that no one is responsible for saving you.
[ November 26, 2005, 08:15 PM: Message edited by: katharina ]
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Thank you, Kat.
if, when I went to traffic school a few years a go for *ahem* educational reasons, the instructor wished us all a small accident in order that we understood that bad things could happen to us while driving. Something that would wake us up and make sure we took all the proper precautions from then on.
I sincerely hope that this is your small accident where the worse thing that happens to you is that your pride is hurt.
Along those lines, are you on birth control? Did he wear a condom? Regardless, you know that you need to get yourself checked out for STDs now and, I think, in about six months, right? Please bite the bullet and make it happen. Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I'm always slightly bemused when we agree, Stormy. I'm not sure if it is me or you that is acting outside their expected alignment.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
*laugh*
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Not to belabor the rape point, but I wanted to ask pH where she got that bit about an inebriated woman can't consent to sex? Is that personal opinion or were you quoting FL statutes or something? I'm pretty sure that the reality of the law is vastly different from your assertion, and I think there's a problem with teaching that particular viewpoint to women if it isn't true from a legal point of view.
Just seeking clarification.
Posted by ifmyheartcouldbeat (Member # 8692) on :
I was in no way blaming the alcohol for what I did. I would never use it as an excuse. I did not "black out" or claim to.
But i clearly wasn't in any shape to be making a decision.
I do believe we're both at fault. We have mutual friends and i can't avoid this guy. My question is...
Should i be angry at him? Or Should i take my bruised prided self and be civil?
I just didn't know if i even have the right to be mad considering the circumstances.
I believe he did wrong (so did I) and my friends believe he is wrong. But in both cases the parties are biased (obviously). Which is why i figured id throw it out here.
This situation is a new one to me. So i didn't know quite how to react. Especially when i know i'm going to run into him again.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:Should i be angry at him? Or Should i take my bruised prided self and be civil?
Oh yeah. I'd be mad as heck. He was not a gentleman. In the above situation, I'd be even more mad for the way he treated me afterward. You don't have to throw a fit every time you see him, but he's clearly not one of the good guys and is not worth your time. Y'all can go to the same parties without interacting too much.
Please remember the bruised pride and your current regret, and not be in the same situation. If you do still drink at parties and would like someone to watch out for you, make sure it's a girl friend who isn't drinking. It's possible he'll try again if he finds you in a similar state. *hugs*
Posted by ifmyheartcouldbeat (Member # 8692) on :
you're right kat.
my girlfriends even said..."Where were we??"
I've def. learned a lesson or two here..
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
You do have reason to be upset, both at yourself and at him. Having to socialize with him will definately be awkward. I'm not sure how you should handle that situation. Unfortunately he'll never see it as more than a one-night stand and it probably didn't even cross his mind that you liked him as much as he did. Be more careful in the future okay? (((HUGS)))
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
That's what life is for, I think. Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
imhcb:
YES! You should be as angry as a hornet. Were I you, I would let this guy know that he is an abusive and ugly person, and while you do not entirely blame him for the incident, you also feel like he took advantage of you in an obviously compromised position. He knew your wishes and should have respected them. Whether he wants to argue with you about or not, the bottom line is that if he were anything but scum, he would've backed off and waited until the situation was more obviously mutual.
I'd also let him know that you find the very thought of him utterly repulsive and that it is your wish to never be alone with him ever, and should he ever find that such a situation is about to occur, you would appreciate it if he acted the gentleman and withdrew immediately.
I'm sure you could find less corny language than what I've posted, but honestly, I would think you are entirely within your rights to develop a strong antipathy toward this person. He has proven himself to be anything but a gentleman and to be at least enough of a sociopath to care more about his gonads than about being just a decent human being.
IMHO, you should avoid him like the plague.
Sadly, it sounds like he's part of a circle of friends and you might end up seeing one of your close friends engaged to this creep.
I'm sorry this has happened.
And I second Storm's advice about getting checked.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
Bob's right - that is not the law.
The element of consent actually goes to the (objective, not subjective) mind of the raper, not the victim.
So if someone says Yes but really means No, even if they are drunk, it's not rape. (That doens't mean it's not wrong, of course).
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
rest a little more easy -- there was protection used.
Posted by dkw (Member # 3264) on :
I agree with the avoid him like the plauge part, and the he is not a gentleman part, but not so much the getting angry part.
What purpose will getting angry serve?
Yes, he took advantage, no, you shouldn't trust him, but if I were you I'd be less interested in telling him off than in protecting myself from further emotional pain.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
As to where I got the drunk=cannot consent thing, it was from a law class. Drunk people also aren't liable for contracts they enter into while drunk. Also, I know girls who've had to go to the hospital because of similar incidents, and they consider it rape and offer to help file appropriate police reports, if the girl thinks it necessary (they've all refused to do so, however). But it's possible that in those cases, the girls never said yes to begin with. Although personally, I don't consider going to be alone/fool around with someone to be the same as consenting to sex.
Anyways, that aside, this guy sounds like frat boy scum. I'm sorry this happened to you, ifmyheartcouldbeat. I left you an IM with my working email.
-pH
Posted by Danzig (Member # 4704) on :
She was. You intentionally intoxicate yourself, you are responsible for your mental and emotional states as well as your decisions. Drugs may explain a choice, but they do not excuse it. I do not approve of the guy's actions, but he did not do anything "wrong" if I am understanding the story correctly. His subsequent behavior makes him a jerk IMO.
Either learn to say no when drunk and keep saying it, or cut back on the drinking. If I were you I would have no desire for further contact with him. Nothing I type looks right for this sentiment, but I do sympathise.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Thanks pH. Interesting. You can be responsible causing deaths while driving drunk, but not for these other things. Odd.
As for the anger bit, I should've added that anger is a useful emotion for certain things, like affecting change in oneself or (in controlled ways) in getting a point across to others.
I don't recommend it as a lifestyle choice, though. It's important to learn from this and to keep this guy (and others like him) in a position where they can do no more harm to you. If your anger leads you down a path that is personally destructive (fixating on the event, wanting to physically harm him in retribution, hating men in general, etc., etc., then that's not good or useful at all).
Ultimately, forgiving yourself and him is more important than being angry about it now. This is by no means the end of the world and you shouldn't let it become a focal point for anything. It's a learning experience and we all make mistakes, sometimes large, sometimes small.
Learn from it, and, as much as possible, be the person making choices in your life so that you can more closely be the person you wish to be.
Like all of us, you now have a "what a dope I was" moment to use for instruction and for guiding you in your understanding and compassion towards others.
I'm a little ashamed that I haven't expressed more of that in my posts here, really. It's not like most of us don't have events to look back on and cringe.
Been there, or close enough that it makes no difference, and had MY heart stomped into mush. I can't undo it, and, in many ways, I wouldn't want to since I consider the lesson rather valuable and I'm glad I learned it at all.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Back in the early 80's, in my single days I attended a wedding of a friend. During the course of the evening a young woman serving cake and I chatted and flirted a bit. The buddy who I rode up with was ready to leave and when I told the young lady I was gonna have to catch my ride home she offered to chauffeur me home later, she was a persuasive lass.
We hung out and I had fun talking with her. She was attractive and witty and I was still hurting from a break-up from months earlier. She took me home, an hour's ride away and it was late. She dropped hints that she was too tired to drive back home so I offered her the couch. She pled that she wouldn't sleep well and could she sleep in my bed. I acquiesced and at this point I made it clear that I wasn't interested in sex. I hoped that she understood that I liked her but I was still having some issues from my previous relationship. She indicated that she understood and would respect my wishes.
When I began to gather blankets and a pillow to make myself cozy on the couch she promised that she would be good but that she didn't want to kick me out of my own bed and couldn't we share. Again I capitulated (yes I could see where this was going) but reiterated my desire to not be intimate. She then remarked that she preferred to sleep in her birthday suit and again I gave in.
An attractive nude woman snuggling against me was not an ideal soporific and she didn't seem as tired as she had professed earlier. I'm ashamed to admit that I once again wilted (that's probably not the most descriptive term) in my resolve. Alchohol was involved and I was not pleased with myself or her the next morning. Was I raped?
Posted by blacwolve (Member # 2972) on :
In my dorm last year there were signs up all over saying "alcohol + sex = rape" it's also something I've heard in every presentation on the topic, and every class I've taken on the topic.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Case 1: A boy who sets out to get a girl drunk, because he knows she won't consent to sex while sober.
Case 2: A girl gets herself drunk and gives consent she would otherwise not have given.
Are you saying that these two cases are equivalent? If so, does the equivalency hold if you reverse the genders?
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:The girl ends up drinking MANY more beers and when the guy asks her to go upstairs she agrees. This time too drunk to stop what was tried earlier so it happens.
Honestly, I'm surprised by the initial reactions in this thread. If she was "too drunk to stop what was tried earlier," that implies she tried to stop him -- which means he committed rape. (Unless you didn't try to stop him, imhcb?)
Also, Pearce was right when she said if the girl is drunk, it's rape.
Yes, drinking to excess puts one at serious risk of sexual assault -- but are we seriously blaming the woman for her rape?
Posted by ifmyheartcouldbeat (Member # 8692) on :
The first time i tried and succeeded to stop him the second time i was TOO DRUNK to.
But that doesn't mean he forced me to do it.
It wasn't rape..i was drunk. But I technically did say yes the second time. Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: In my dorm last year there were signs up all over saying "alcohol + sex = rape" it's also something I've heard in every presentation on the topic, and every class I've taken on the topic.
/vent
Things like this make me really angry. To me, it utilizes something very serious as political, and ideological, feminist and teetotaler propaganda, and turns women into vacuous idiots. I mean, I'm just guessing they're not talking about men being raped when they have sex with a drunk woman, right? No, of course not. It's only women that need to be protected from themselves. You and your wife share a bottle of wine and have sex? That's rape!
It's incredibly idiotic sloganeering that engages in slippery slope stupidity. Statements like that make me want to cuss. Phooey.
/vent
Let's just stick with 'no means no', please, and emphasize that if she's passed out and can't say one way or another, yes, that's rape.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Those of you that are advocating that alcohol + sex = rape haven't answered the question I asked in my little tale. Was I raped?
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I've never pressured a girl anything like that, but I know it's fairly common behavior (among certain crowds).
Sorry that some guys suck.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
Jesus. I'm sorry, girl. I have friends who were waiting until marriage and were pressured/forced into things, and they felt it ruined them.
Just, please, don't ever feel that way yourself. I wish this had been special for you -- I wish every time you had sex, it was making love with someone who loves you in return -- but that's not how life works out for most people. Getting you drunk and into bed isn't legally rape -- though it is morally if he knew what he was doing -- and there's no way to legally prosecute him. If you want the next girl to be safe from him, tell everyone what he did -- put up fliers, make sure everyone connects his name with his crimes.
If you don't feel he's earned retribution, or if you don't want that kind of publicity -- and most I know haven't -- then I'm sorry, the road's yours from here on. I wish you hadn't gone through this. Be careful, okay? If you drink, make sure you have a reliable friend with you to watch your back. There are a number of men who prey on drunken women; it looks like you found one.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
And no, Storm, what happened to her isn't rape in its purest form -- to name it such would be a crime to all women who suffered true horror of rape -- but she was essentially drugged into acquiescence and taken to a bedroom. What would you call that?
There's no clear-cut term I see -- part of this was pressure, part of it was possibly (probably) intentional drugging -- but I wouldn't call what he did moral by any sense of the word. He knew she didn't want to have sex, and he just happened to give her enough alcohol until she gave in. I can't see a legal case being formed against him, but if there's a hell, this bastard's going to fry there.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
quote:...but she was essentially drugged into acquiescence...
He didn't drug her, unless she said that somewhere and I missed it. I take your statement to mean that you wouldn't draw a distinction between my two cases above? Would you also not draw a distinction between the cases if the genders were reversed?
Added: Look, nobody's sticking up for the guy or denying that he's a piece of s#%& for doing what he did. There's a difference between saying "you are also partly responsible" and blaming you for what happened, and you don't seem to be seeing that distinction.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
And no, Punwit, you weren't raped. You sound astoundingly sober in your decision-making, and while you were certainly pressured into sex, your mind was your own when you capitulated time and time again, knowing where she was going.
Let's put it in the third person. Your wife (and this is not meant as a personal attack, just a hypothetical) goes through the exact same situation imhcb did. She told a guy she didn't want to have sex, he fed her alcohol (and it doesn't sound like imhcb has much experience with the stuff), and he eventually gets her drunk enough to go to bed with him.
Was she raped?
If you insist putting this in the male perspective, fine. I'm a relatively naive young man who doesn't want to have sex, and the person I turn down feeds me alcohol until I'm intoxicated enough to let her do what she wants. I was raped. Any situation which requires drugs to change my opinion, I feel, is rape.
Don't you?
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Ifmcb (I hope the contractionizing is OK),
"Blame" is a tricky word. There are many kinds of "blame", and blame also sometimes means "responsibility" and there are lots of kinds of that, too. Keeping that in mind...
In one way, you both were to blame for what happened. I mean that in the sense that you willingly entered into a situation (getting plastered) in which you could've reasonably predicted several possible outcomes, one of which actually happened.
In another way, he was to blame because he knew (unless he was *very* drunk-you haven't been very specific about that) that you didn't want things to go further, and only asked again when you were impaired.
Hell, in a way your girlfriends (if they were there, I think you've said they were there) are partially to "blame" because I think friends have an obligation to look out for each other when one friend starts getting trashed. Even when drunk I've stopped more than one friend from driving or mouthing off to cops or getting (non-violently) taken advantage of by the type of man you're describing.
Obviously, harm was done. You did something you did not wish to do due to alcohol impairment. That's harmful-it's not something people look back on happily, and with-even protected-there are a host of other more tangible consequences, as well.
I think he did more wrong than you did, as well as doing the wrong to another person. It's one thing to do something wrong when it only hurts yourself-getting plastered, for instance-quite another to do a wrong against another person.
I think it's also clear that he knows he did something wrong, because after the fact he's acting squirrely.
-----
There are some questions that need to be asked, too. How much exactly did he have to drink? That changes things, possibly. If he was just buzzing, then I think he's quite a lot more scummy than I'd think he is if he were as plastered as you were-although I'd still think he's scummy (en vino veritas is the saying, I think).
I think that because if a woman cannot be held responsible for not saying, "No!" to a man while drunk, if a man is equally drunk it seems strange to me to hold him to a higher standard of responsibility.
quote:It wasn't rape..i was drunk. But I technically did say yes the second time.
Which begs the second question. This statement is why I think he's a scumbag but not a rapist (but that feeling on my part is entirely dependant on just how drunk he was, something which we are unable to quantify).
When you say "technically", could you be more specific? Witout being explicit, I mean. For instance, a person could consent with a nod, or a spoken word, or (possibly) by silence and response.
--------
For the record, given his behavior I think he is probably guilty of rape. From what you've described, I think it is more likely that he tried you when you were sober, got shut down, and simply returned to the party, noticed you were getting hammered, and waited to try again. I think it's unlikely that he tried to get with you that night and then just stopped paying attention to you entirely until he tried again. I don't think he was so plastered as to be unaware of himself and unresponsible for his actions, just because of the timing and method (asks you once, you say no, waits moves you to a secluded area and tries again).
As for practical matters, the advice katharina gave you is excellent. If you're going to drink, make sure you've got someone there to watch your back.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:If you insist putting this in the male perspective, fine. I'm a relatively naive young man who doesn't want to have sex, and the person I turn down feeds me alcohol until I'm intoxicated enough to let her do what she wants. I was raped. Any situation which requires drugs to change my opinion, I feel, is rape.
The person doing the feeding of alcohol was the woman, you didn't mention that.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Case 1: A boy who sets out to get a girl drunk, because he knows she won't consent to sex while sober.
Case 2: A girl gets herself drunk and gives consent she would otherwise not have given.
Are you saying that these two cases are equivalent? If so, does the equivalency hold if you reverse the genders?
I hold that the first is rape, the second is a mistake. The difference here is that imhcb said no when he tried to have sex with her. Seeing that, he gave her alcohol until she gave in.
Alcohol is a drug which influences judgement and critical thinking. imhcb doesn't sound, and I don't think this is unfair, very familiar with alcohol, nor with party-atmosphere sexual pressure (and again, I could very well be wrong, this is just the impression I'm picking up). I'm going to go out on a limb and guess the guy saw this, and knew if he couldn't pressure her into sex, he could pressure her into something which would eventually get him there.
Yes, imhcb's partly responsible for what happened -- but her mistakes were inexperience and trust, and are NOT comparable to his crimes. Maybe I take sexual assault more seriously than you do -- maybe I have more friends who've had their lives destroyed by similar situations -- but I'm pretty sure she's going through enough hell as is. I don't need to remind her it's her fault she was sexually assaulted (and she was, if not violently) because, after all, she didn't bring a friend to watch out for her.
Christ.
Posted by Lalo (Member # 3772) on :
quote:Originally posted by Rakeesh:
quote:If you insist putting this in the male perspective, fine. I'm a relatively naive young man who doesn't want to have sex, and the person I turn down feeds me alcohol until I'm intoxicated enough to let her do what she wants. I was raped. Any situation which requires drugs to change my opinion, I feel, is rape.
The person doing the feeding of alcohol was the woman, you didn't mention that.
Honestly, I don't see how gender matters here. Does it?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: And no, Storm, what happened to her isn't rape in its purest form -- to name it such would be a crime to all women who suffered true horror of rape -- but she was essentially drugged into acquiescence and taken to a bedroom. What would you call that?
It's not rape at all, Lalo. She was a willing participant throughout. As I said before, I've been drunk, and it doesn't make you into someone else. It doesn't excuse you for anything that you do.
I've been around lots of drunk women who said no to me and others, Lalo. I've been around lots of drunk people who gave their keys up rather than drive, or made provisions beforehand to find a way home rather than drive. I've been around lots of drunk people who walked away from a fight and didn't do stupid shite. Etc. Etc. Etc forever.
Booze is just an excuse. It's not a reason. If booze is a reason, then drunk men who rape women shouldn't really be held liable because they are drunk, right? Further, if both of them were drunk, who is to blame in all of this if neither was in their 'right mind'?
Reading what she has written, it seems to me that the bad part isn't so much that she had sex with him, as it is that she really liked him and he blew her off after having sex with her. Having had that happen to me, I can tell you that that *really* sucks by itself.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
I agree with Stormy.
I don't think she was raped if she said yes, even if she was drunk when she said it.
The guy is class nine *&$%#, and I think that as much for the way he acted later as for any other reason. He wasn't drinking when he treated the way he did later, and it doesn't matter if he had an engraved invitation for sex. The later behavior makes him not worth her time.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I agree with both Storm and Kat.
quote: Seeing that, he gave her alcohol until she gave in.
Where did she say this? As far as I can tell from what she's said, he did nothing of the kind. That's what Rakeesh was trying to point out in his post: she drank more alcohol herself, he wasn't giving it to her.
I don't think anyone in this thread actually holds the position you're attacking so vehemently.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I don't need to remind her it's her fault she was sexually assaulted (and she was, if not violently) because, after all, she didn't bring a friend to watch out for her.
Except she wasn't sexually assaulted, Eds. She said "yes" when she would have normally said "no," that's all. She was used, but she was not assaulted.
I'm actually interested in whether she's old enough to drink legally.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
It is really appalling that guys who supposedly care about you, or who make a seeming of caring about you, as a person, are nevertheless not safe to be around if you ever are in a vulnerable state.
I think that betrayal is what is felt most keenly by most young girls when they first discover this fact. It's not that they haven't read countless stories of guys taking advantage of girls, or tricking them into believing they like them as people, only to dump them instantly when they either get what they're after or realize they're not going to. It's just the idea that this particular guy they like, and think is a good person, turns out to be like that. It's inconceivable, really, until it happens. And then the feeling of betrayal is tremendous.
It's a horrible feeling, that you can't even trust people whom you thought were good friends, and who give the seeming of being decent, good people. The idea that so many guys seem to think it's okay to act like that is really difficult to believe. Thank goodness for guys like our hatrack guys who aren't like that. It's hard not to lose your faith in humanity if you are exposed to too many guys who are opportunistic and only pretend to care about you as a human being.
The betrayal is the worst. That and the fact that to everyone else it seems like business as usual, what did you expect, etc. etc. Cads take advantage of girls all the time. What's horrible is that so many people don't even seem to think the worse of them for it, and they don't seem to realize themselves what a creepy low horrible thing it is to do.
[ November 27, 2005, 08:20 PM: Message edited by: Tatiana ]
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Again, I am extremely grateful for being a member of a community of people in which such behavior is viewed as a very very serious fault.
Sex is serious because it IS, not because of foolish or misguided prudism, or outdated conventions of society. It touches very close to our innermost selves. Those who treat it as something light and frivolous are doing themselves and their partners great harm.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Those who treat it as something light and frivolous are doing themselves and their partners great harm.
"Great harm?"
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
Indeed.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
Or not, as the case may be. *laugh* Really, Anne Kate, on this board alone -- which is full of lots of people who're less likely than most to be fans of light, frivolous sex -- I'd say that the percentage of people who've had light, frivolous sex and felt that "great harm" resulted is probably around 50%.
Heck, the few times "great harm" -- or any harm -- resulted in my life due to sexual contact, it was during non-frivolous sex.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
quote:Indeed.
Care to expand on that any? It seems a remarkable assertion to me.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
Tom: another thing to note is that those on hatrack who have experienced harm from "frivolous sex" seem to have universally been young people. Take from that what one will.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
There are a number of reasons for that, starting with perhaps your observation is incorrect.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
I can think of some older people who have suffered harm from non-frivolous sex, but not any that have suffered harm from frivolous sex, as they've been discussed here.
Posted by fugu13 (Member # 2859) on :
(though of course, there could be a selection phenomenon occurring in who will discuss said sex on hatrack; it is an interesting question whether young people would be more or less likely to discuss harm-causing frivolous sex than adults, on hatrack)
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
I think we should be careful to define terms here. "Harm" in particular is a rather nebulous thing. It could mean something as impermanent as a "broken heart," long since mended, or something as horrid as a life-ending disease.
Since I think that everyone has their heart broken sooner or later, I'm not at all inclined to ascribe to that a description so ominous as "great harm" would imply. Broken hearts mend, and people learn from it, and become wiser and, in most cases, less careless of their own hearts in the future, and, often, less careless with the hearts of others as well.
And a lesson that teaches compassion toward our fellow humans is not such a bad lesson at all, in the grand scheme of things.
Besides, I'm not sure that there's a reliable way to avoid the lesson. How many of us are lucky enough to have our first serious relationship be with someone whom we can spend the rest of our lives with? Whether sex enters the picture or not, we're sort of talking about a growth experience that many of us are going to go through in a painful manner.
Now, if we want to talk about harm as in physical things, then we really need to further define the terms, not just of the harm, but of the causes. If a person, through lack of knowledge and insufficient caution, ends up engaging in sexual behaviors that result in life-threatening situations, I think we're into a realm that's well beyond "frivolous sex" and into something more along the order of self-destructive behavior, or plug ignorance, and, again, the sex isn't really to blame, it's a symptom of a much deeper problem.
So...I'd like to see some better explanations before we just descend into "sex is bad except under certain prescribed situations." I, for one, think a huge leap is being made, and one that is, perhaps, based on a whole set of unstated assumptions I'd probably disagree with if they were presented in detail.
Posted by Farmgirl (Member # 5567) on :
quote: As someone who regularly drank to excess for many years, I never got to the point where I didn't know what I was doing. While I have known some people who supposedly drank a lot and were capable of speech and movement, but claimed later to be 'blacked out' and not remember anything, imho this is kind of a rarity and takes some practice to achieve this level of drunkenness. I don't get the sense from the above that that's the case here, and in any case, if you get that drunk, it's still you that's pouring the booze down your throat.
Storm Saxon -- I could probably get into a lengthy debate with you in reply to this one paragraph of yours, but I'm not going to do it during ifmyheartcouldbeat's thread.
But remind me someday and we may come back to this point and begin a new thread on alcohol....
FG
Posted by ifmyheartcouldbeat (Member # 8692) on :
I am actually mostly upset over the fact that people exist like this. Of course i'm upset that I had sex with him, but I'm not sitting here beating myself up over it.
I'm going to try to answer some questions.
From what i saw, he didn't not seem even the least bit drunk. But guys tend to be better at handling themselves when they are intoxicated. I came to the party after he was there so i have no idea how many he actually consumed. He seemed tipsy when i got there. He consumed more after that, but i didn't see him consume anymore after the initial hooking up. It was a good hour or two before we went back upstairs. But i def could have missed it in the state i was in.
I am not of legal age to be drinking.
I drank more, he didn't hand me a single one. So that is all on me.
I'm def not unfamilar to the party/drinking scene.
By technically...i meant. I did not say the word yes. I did not nod..or anything. I just went.
and Storm- "i've been around lots of drunk women who have said no to me and others"
I agreed to it. I know i agreed to it. I didn't black out. I knew semi what was going on...and the alcohol in me didn't take away my ability to say no.
It did however take away my reason to. Thats all i was saying.
This was never a question of rape for me. I consented. I'm telling you I agreed to it the second time around.
My girlfriends were not there. The only person who would have looked out for me left early.
Posted by ifmyheartcouldbeat (Member # 8692) on :
and also. My heart was not broken here. I hung out with the guy a couple times. I had feelings, but they were far from strong yet.
I guess i was lucky i found out early on before I got really attached that he was an ass.
Too late for some things..but not all.
Posted by Tatiana (Member # 6776) on :
The harm is on many levels. One that would be uncontroversial is the risk of life-threatening disease. People who take sex lightly have usually had many partners and are at highest risk for deadly or lifelong diseases.
Another is the risk of bringing a new life into being, an innocent one who may suffer horribly from the choices of his or her parents. The parents will suffer for those choices as well, and for the impact they had on the innocent life they made together.
But the harm I am thinking of is to your innermost self. Even if you are quite lucky on the other things. Even if you escape disease or unwanted pregnancy. Sex is the most intensely personal gift possible, in which you give your very self. When that gift is treated by either or both parties as though it's worth very little, then great harm has come about to those people, to their deepest selves. There's no way to talk about this without touching on things that people get very offended and hurt about, of course. So I won't say any more or reply any further.
But I wanted to state plainly that it's the recent way of treating sex lightly which is in error. I wanted to say that to ifmyheartcouldbeat, so that in her pondering and trying to decide what happened, and what should have happened, and what she feels about it all, that she recognize the validity of those feelings she has that something very wrong happened here.
Posted by imogen (Member # 5485) on :
quote: Sex is the most intensely personal gift possible, in which you give your very self
I think many people would challenge this inherent assumption.
And if you don't believe that statement, then it follows not to believe the conclusions you draw from it.
Posted by Strider (Member # 1807) on :
quote:alcohol + sex = rape
Then I can't tell you how many times i've raped my girlfriend. I agree with Stormy's vent. The whole idea of that argument is preposterous.
This guy is an Ahole. Probably knowing she was more drunk and more easily persuadable he starting hitting on her again. Something along of the lines of, "oh, she's drunk, i can probably get her to have sex with me now." Now depending on how people view decisions made while under the influence of alcohol, or the decision to drink alcohol in the first place, you may call what took place rape. Or you may view at is opportunistic, or taking advantage of someone, or being sleezy and morally repulsive. I think the specifics are up for debate. But I believe that no one party is "in the wrong".
quote:Those who treat it as something light and frivolous are doing themselves and their partners great harm.
I also don't see any base in this statment. Frivolous does not equal irresponsible.
quote:Sex is the most intensely personal gift possible, in which you give your very self
This is your pesonal view. Not everyone necessarily agrees with it. To me, my body is not the most intensely personaly gift i can give to someone, and visa versa.
Posted by TomDavidson (Member # 124) on :
quote: I'm def not unfamilar to the party/drinking scene.
If there's any cautionary moral to be taken from this story, it's this: do not do things which take you outside yourself unless you are in a safe environment, surrounded only by people you trust explicitly. (And in my own case, after years of experience, I add the following corollary: and sometimes not even then.)
I don't mean just drugs and alcohol, by the way. I mean anything that temporarily makes you forget who you are and who you want to be.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
*strongly seconded*
i think that, more than any anti-social tendencies, is why i really hate bars and large parties.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Yep, I'll 3rd that!
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Tatiana, for reasons already discussed, I think the sex without protection is in a different classification than what I would agree to as "frivolous sex," IF I'm understanding you correctly. I think you're mixing a whole bunch of attitudes and behaviors under a general heading and trying to throw everyone (other than happily married couples) into one giant bin. It doesn't work.
As for the nontangible harm, I just don't agree. I actually do believe that sex CAN be part of an ultimate sharing of oneself and that, when that happens, the sex IS more meaningful and part of something transcendant.
Sadly, marriage doesn't guarantee that experience.
But that does not mean that any sex other than the transcendant kind is BAD. And certainly I'd still take issue with saying that any other kind of sex (other than the transcendant kind) causes "great harm."
Of course, I also have to take issue with calling the phenomenon "recent."
[ November 28, 2005, 05:13 AM: Message edited by: Bob_Scopatz ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
ifmyheart...
I'm really unclear about your feelings on this. I thought you said at the beginning that you'd at least entertained some notion of perhaps building a relationship with this guy, something that now seems unlikely, if not impossible given his character. At least I hope you would NOT give your heart to such a person. But from that I assumed you were at least a bit heart broken. But, yes, my comments were of a more general nature and not necessarily limited to your scenario.
However, please forgive me if I was reading too much into the situation or what you'd said about your feelings.
Specific to what you have said, it seems more likely that what we're talking about is a bruised ego and a violation of your misplaced trust (i.e., the trust you put in this man to honor your initial wishes).
I'll speculate further to say that the bruised ego results from a mixture of things like the following (your list may vary, of course): - learning you have limits with respect to alcohol and how much you can trust yourself under those circumstances. - a certain amount of dissonance with respect to your actions versus your true desires in this situation. - a vague worry about what you might be capable of in the future, given the "right" circumstances. - learning that, perhaps, you are not an unerring judge of character.
What you do about these (or other self-image-related issues that you may substitute on that list) depends, I think, on what you want to be and what sort of relationships you are going to have over the next few years. I'm not just talking about whether sex is part of the relationships, btw. I'm talking about how serious and how committed those relationships are, and the sexual aspect of it all is a different, though related, question.
Regarding the violated trust, you have learned (heck, probably re-learned if it comes right down to it) that trusting too readily people you know only from their behavior in a larger group context is not always safe. You learned this lesson at the cost of some pride, but, thankfully, not too likely anything worse than that. Although, I do admit that a bruised ego can hurt for awhile, and the lessons learned that way are often painful, I don't think there's anything like permanent damage from this sort of thing, unless you let it be.
I only mention that last because, honestly, even in an anonymous context, this is not the sort of thing I'd expect to read about on a BB. If there IS some self-esteem issue you are wrestling with over this, and it seems to be lingering to the point where you can't "get past it," then I do recommend that you get together with a counselor of whatever variety you are comfortable with.
Other than that, I'd say, learn from it and move on. I would think that it's perfectly reasonable to never trust this particular guy again, and to have a certain residual wariness about any of his close associates, as well as your own ability to control things. But other than that, what else is there but to move on and be wiser as a result of having been through the experience?
AGAIN, this presupposes that you do not wish to file assault charges. There's at least some sentiment here in support of that, and I can't rule out that possibility from what information we have. If you change your mind on that aspect of it, I suggest you go to the police or the campus authorities and talk to a victim aide.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
quote:Originally posted by Lalo: And no, Punwit, you weren't raped. You sound astoundingly sober in your decision-making, and while you were certainly pressured into sex, your mind was your own when you capitulated time and time again, knowing where she was going.
Let's put it in the third person. Your wife (and this is not meant as a personal attack, just a hypothetical) goes through the exact same situation imhcb did. She told a guy she didn't want to have sex, he fed her alcohol (and it doesn't sound like imhcb has much experience with the stuff), and he eventually gets her drunk enough to go to bed with him.
Was she raped?
If you insist putting this in the male perspective, fine. I'm a relatively naive young man who doesn't want to have sex, and the person I turn down feeds me alcohol until I'm intoxicated enough to let her do what she wants. I was raped. Any situation which requires drugs to change my opinion, I feel, is rape.
Don't you?
Lalo, This was an incident that took place over 20 years ago. My retelling of it perhaps doesn't retain the original flavor that is certainly tinged with an alcoholic haze. I remember thinking that the girl was pushing for physical intimacy but I promised myself I wouldn't go there. I was weak willed and I partially blame the alchohol for that loss of will power, but I wasn't raped.
As has been clarified by imhcb the alcohol wasn't poured down her throat or mine with a tube while we were being forcibly restrained. I know somewhat how imhcb feels and I agree that the young fella in question was a cad and an opportunistic jerk, but I don't agree (given the info available) that she was raped.
Posted by ifmyheartcouldbeat (Member # 8692) on :
Yes, I was a little bit heartbroken, but not devastatingly. It was more of a bruised ego situation.
Unfortuantly..this wasn't even a large party situation. There was about ten people there if that and they were mostly people i graduated with.
I knew of the guy for years and everyone told me to go for it. Thats what sucks even worse was his rep was good and so were is recommendations. I had just recently technically 'met' him. But we pretty much grew up together going to the same high school and all. The majority of the people there though were his friends.
Just some info to add to the scenerio. I dont know if it changes anything.
Oh and i def dont' mean to sound light-hearted about the whole sex situation. I def. dont advocate casual sex.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Seconded (I don't know if I was clear about it before) Storm Saxon's venting.
quote:I am actually mostly upset over the fact that people exist like this. Of course i'm upset that I had sex with him, but I'm not sitting here beating myself up over it.
I think this is the wisest response you could have to this situation. Base your future decisions, as Tom said, on this realization that such people abound, and be upset with yourself that you were taken advantage of-but not TOO upset-and move on.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: But remind me someday and we may come back to this point and begin a new thread on alcohol....
At this point in my internet life, I am bored with debate, but if you feel like you would like to talk about it, that's cool.
Assuming we are talking about my comment regarding blacking out, remember that my point was personal, and as such, I am not saying that it's some kind of biological truth. I *think* I could back it up with studies, but, eh, maybe not.
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
I've certainly been drunk enough, a couple of times, that I didn't remember some of what had happened when I woke up the next morning.
Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Blackouts would certainly inhibit recriminations. If you can't remember it, you can't regret it?
Posted by twinky (Member # 693) on :
Indeed. I'm sure I'm not as averse to getting drunk as I would be if I remembered the worst of my vomiting experiences.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Well, keep in mind I said 'with practice'. Recognizing that Canadians are basically drinking hardcore liquor from birth, I still maintain that most people who haven't built up some kind of tolerance for alcohol are going to either be too sick to do anything when they reach that level of inebration, or they're just going to pass out.
Anyways, there was talk of making this into another thread. Probably a good idea if anyone else feels the need to pursue the topic.
edit: I can't ever spell 'alchohol' correctly. Posted by punwit (Member # 6388) on :
Unfortunately I've never suffered a blackout so I'm stuck remembering all those painful retched times.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Am I the only one who thinks that what the guy did wasn't that bad? I don't know, I see people imputing a predatory motive to him that I don't think is necessarily the case.
From my perspective, guy's at a party with a girl. Everyone's drinking. They fool around, but she puts a stop to it. However, she doesn't say "No". She says "Not yet". They continue hanging out and drinking and they go to fool around again. The girl agrees, and though she later describes it as being "too drunk to stop what was tried earlier so it happens", it sounds like she goes along without raising any form of protest. Not the smoothest or noblest course of action, but hardly demonstrative of an incredibly low character.
Doesn't sound anything like as big a deal as people are making it out to be. My first impression, on reading the opening post was "Sounds like the guy didn't call her afterwards." That's just my first impression and I'm not tied to it, but I do wonder, heart, when this interpretation of the night's events became the one you held. Was it the next day or was it after being rejected by the guy later?
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
MrSquicky:
I found the following aspects of the guy's behavior truly horrid:
1) In part 1, he assured her they wouldn't go further than she wanted to, and knew her reasons for stopping (she expressed interest in him as a potential relationship and didn't want mess things up with sex). He appeared to accept this, only to take advantage of her drunken state later in the evening to get what he wanted. 2) Knowing that she wanted a relationship, he proceded to have sex with her even though he did not want a relationship. He took advantage of her heart in this decision and didn't care if he hurt her. 3) He had sex with a person who he knew to be drunk. IMHO, this is a situation to be avoided for a variety of reasons, but mainly because you can't be sure the person really WANTED sex, and the implications for the other person, for oneself, and the involvement of legal and health entanglements is just too high in such situations. At the very least, he displayed extremely poor judgement (perhaps due in part to his own alcohol-induced disinhibition). At worst, he is a rapist and deliberately waited until he judged the moment to approach/attack her.
Ultimately, the question I have to ask is would you want to be this guy? Is sex with a drunk girl something to aspire to? Especially the FIRST TIME the two of you are intimate? Would you walk away from such an encounter thinking "hey, that was fun, I can't wait for the next drunken female to come along."
Would YOU feel that, knowing the woman didn't really want casual sex that evening, taking her after she was drunk was a good and honorable act?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
As I said Bob, I don't see the predatory motives that you're ascribing as necessarily there. I don't think framing it as "He appeared to accept this, only to take advantage of her drunken state later in the evening to get what he wanted." accurately caputres the situation. heartbeat didn't say no, she said not now. When they were messing around later (after they both had more to drink) she apparently either said yes or at least didn't say either no or not now. I don't see that this guy necessarily looks to prey on drunk girls. It's more likely to me that he benefited from heartbeat's somewhat (and how much neither we nor he can know) clouded decision making, but I think this being unintentional is at least as likely as it being intentional.
It also doesn't seem to me that the guy is closed to a relationship. He did call her up later. I can see how it's possible, in his mind, he's completely open to a relationship.
heartbeat feels rejected because guy isn't going straight into an exclusive relationship with her, which is what she wanted. I get that and I sympathize. However while, as I said, I don't think guy acted in the smartest of most honorable way, I don't see how he was some sort of predatory scum bag.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
MrS. I think you should re-read the first post. You are revising her statements in a direction that is just not warranted by the stuff she posted. I suppose we could ask.
ultimately, though, I don't think it even matters what the words were, if you think about what he really did.
So, I'll ask again, if you were in his situation and knew that this woman was "interested in you" and was drunk, would you have your first (and probably only) sexual experience with her that night? Knowing also that you didn't share her desire to explore a deeper relationship?
That IS all there in the post. He TOLD HER he didn't want a relationship.
Again, I don't know what posts you read. Maybe you could provide quotations of the pieces you think make him "open" to a relationship. Or the parts where she said "not now" instead of "no?"
Even if it was "not now" do you really get the sense that not now meant "ask me later tonight when I'm plastered?"
Seriously... you are baffling me.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Bob, (Keep in mind, I'm only presenting a possible interpretation of what happened. As I know very little about it, I can't say anything with much certainty. I'm offering this because I think it could quite possibly describe what happened and it seems to not have been brought up.)
I don't think I am revising her statements. heartbeat was obviously hoping for an exclusive relationship with this guy. He decided at some point that he didn't want this right now.
It doesn't have to be exclusive to be a relationship. Guy seems like he wasn't just looking for a one night stand. He called her up to go do something again.
If you assume that his thinking was "Well, I'll just wait until you get drunk and then I can take advantage of you." then yeah, he looks pretty bad, but I don't think that this is necessarily what happened. In that situation, if heartbeat stayed with the guy at that party, they were going to hook up again. It was well-neigh inevitible and he knew it, she knew it, and the rest of the people at the party knew it. They were both also drinking during this time, leading to impaired judgement.
When they left to go hook up again, I can completely see guy holding to the "We won't do anything you don't want me to do." standard. But heartbeat seemed to want to do everything that they did and she had already said a sort of yes by staying with the guy and continuing to drink. However, if she had said no during the hook up, I think the guy would have backed off (but I obviously don't know as know nothing more about the situation than was said by one of the parties).
Again, not the smartest of most honorable thing to do, but I think you need to assume that he was planning it out beforehand to csat him as the villian you seem to want to. I can easily see this whole situation developing without malicious scheming on the guy's part.
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
I don't think it was malicious.
I just think it was classless, and both of them used poor judgement.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:she had already said a sort of yes by staying with the guy and continuing to drink.
Not leaving the party = yes to sex?
That is seriously distrubing.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
No, saying yes to sex = saying yes to sex, which she apparently did.
However, she either knew or should have known that if she stayed at the party with this guy, they were going to fool around again and he was very likely to try to take things where he did before, when she told him "Not now." Knowing that this was going to happen and doing nothing to stop it and instead remaining with the guy and drinking is a kind of a yes. You can say that she was drunk at the time when they were fooling around and thus had impaired judgement, but there was a point when her judgement wasn't impaired and she chose at that point to remain in that situation and embrace alcoholic impairment. If she really didn't want to go any further, she had plenty of options she could have chosen at this point but did not. That she didn't makes her partly responsible for what did occured and also could, from a certain point of view, signal her acquiensence to what was very likely to occur
As I said, I'm only offering an alternative. I know almost nothing. I don't know how drunk she was, how drunk he was, what she actually said, how they interacted, and whatever. It's possible that he plied her with alcohol specifically to get himself a one night stand. It's also possible that she was somewhat inebriated but chose to go along with very slight impairment and only recast the situation when the guy rejected the idea of a committed relationship. I think the truth of the situation is likely not close to either of these and I was offering up one possible alternative that hadn't been raised.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I don't get why you keep saying she "stayed with the guy" at the party. Near as I can tell, after the first hook up they seperated and each continued to socialize at the party, but not necessarily "together." Also, you said he called her later to go do something. He didn't. She contacted him on line and asked what was going on, and he said he wasn't interested in a relationship. Not "I'm not interested in a serious relationship but we can still date." It sounded to me like he completely blew her off.
Anyway, you are still presenting a possible alternative view, but you're adding those two facts that make him look much more sympathetic that I don't think are actually in the account anywhere.
(Note to heart. . . I don't think you need to clarify or anything, I don't care how it actually happened, and I think you've got a pretty good hanfle on it now and are going to be okay. I just needed to point out that Squicky was adding those things that I didn't see you saying.)
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
LJ, I don't think heartbeat said one way or the other that she stayed with the guy or not. I'm assuming they did beecause they went and hooked up later, so I'm guessing they were interacting a lot in between hookups. I could be wrong.
As for the "relationship" thing, in her second post, heartbeat said:
quote:Also after the initial relationship conversation we didn't talk for about a week. Then he calls and is like "so you wanna hang out?" and he didn't understand why i was confused.
From a certain way of looking at things, this is being open to a relationship, just not the exclusive relationship hb was looking for and likely asked for when the guy told her he wasn't looking to get into a relationship. I can see how he didn't want to get into a serious, exclusive relationship right then but was willing to date her.
I'm relying a lot on interpretation, but I don't think I'm adding or contradicting facts.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
quote:she either knew or should have known that if she stayed at the party with this guy, they were going to fool around again
The point is that she didn't know what would happen. She'd never had experience with opportunistic guys before.
She has that experience now. However, I don't think naivete is consent.
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
I think that if one knowingly gets innebriated or otherwise incapacitated by drugs, they should be held completely responsible for what they did under the influence. They made the decision to surrender their self-control.
But that's me. I know that's not what the law says.
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
Hmmm, I missed the "hang out" post.
The party was only 10 - 12 people, I think she said, so I'm sure she did interact with him to some extent in between. I just didn't get the feel that she was there "with" him, since they came seperately, and she said he wasn't getting her drinks and she didn't know how much he was drinking.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Except you're begging the question. Only if you assume that the guy is opportunistic going in does the situation parse as him being opportunistic. If you don't start out assum that he was scheming to take advantage of her once she got drunk, he doesn't look so bad.
Guy's persepctive (greatly condensed) could be, he hangs out with girl, they go hook up but she says she doesn't want to go so far right now, they hang out some more, they go hook up and this time she says yes. He has to be actively thinking (at a time where his judgement isn't impaired) about doing something he's pretty sure heartbeat at an important level doesn't want to do but will do if she gets drunk enough to be a scumbag.
We don't even know if guy was aware that heartbeat was in a state where her judgement was severely compromised (or in fact if she was in a state like this). For all we know, he took her assent at face value. I don't see that we're compelled to assume he had sinister motives.
Posted by katharina (Member # 827) on :
We know he was opportunistic before because of the way he treated her later.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:We don't even know if guy was aware that heartbeat was in a state where her judgement was severely compromised (or in fact if she was in a state like this). For all we know, he took her assent at face value. I don't see that we're compelled to assume he had sinister motives.
How many guys do you know who cannot tell when a woman they're sexually interested in is drunk, Mr. Squicky? Especially when they tried to act on their sexual interest just a little while previously?
Posted by ElJay (Member # 6358) on :
I don't particularly think he was being opportunistic, but I do think he is a jerk. I don't think he thought very much about it at all. And that's the problem. If he was a "nice guy" as opposed to a "jerk" the first time they were hooking up, when she said she didn't want to have sex with him because she really liked him and was looking for more than a one-night stand, that's when he should have told her he wasn't looking for a relationship right now, so she could make her choice then to keep fooling around with him or not with that knowledge. Instead, he just said we won't go any further than you want, impying that he was also open to a relationship.
I try to be honest with the people I'm involved with, and I expecct the same from them. Now, I know he had been drinking, and maybe hadn't thought about it yet, or didn't know she was interested in him in that way. In which case, he should have figured it out before going to hook up with her again, and if he couldn't then waited. Not because I don't think you should have sex unless you're in a relationship, but because I think it's important for both parties to be on the same page. If he knew she wanted more than just sex and he didn't, and didn't tell her that, and had sex with her anyway, then he's a jerk. Not a rapist, since she didn't say no. But a cad.
Obviously, alcohol makes the communication and thoughtfulness and being on the same page much more difficult, which is one of the reasons I don't think you should hook up with someone for the first time when you're drunk. She was somewhat foolish. He isn't someone I would want to have as a friend.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:We know he was opportunistic before because of the way he treated her later.
I don't see that. Where is the evidence of his opportunistic nature?
quote:How many guys do you know who cannot tell when a woman they're sexually interested in is drunk, Mr. Squicky? Especially when they tried to act on their sexual interest just a little while previously?
I know plenty of people, myself included, who aren't conspicuously drunk until they get really drunk. It depends on the guy and the girl and also how impaired guy's perception and judgement were. I don't know what heartbeat's like when she's drunk, nor do I know how drunk she was. Was her speech slurred or was she really clumsy? I don't know. Quite possibly not.
And when guy tried to act on his sexual interest previously, heartbeat didn't say no. What she said (as I'm reading it) could be seen as "I'm open to that at some point, but not right now."
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
LJ, But I don't know that he's not open to a relationship. To me, there's a big difference between not wanting to get into an exclusive relationship with a girl right away (and what did she say during that conversation? There are plenty of things that she could have said that would have soured his interest in being in a relationship with her very quickly and/or brought out the "I'm not looking to be in relationship now." without him previously not been interested in a relationship with her) and not wanting a relationship. Based on his later actions, it sounds to me like he's willing and trying to date heartbeat, but that he's not willing to right now be as serious as she would like.
I'm not saying guy was a knight in shining armor here, but I just don't think he's necessarily as bad as people are making him out to be. My interpretation rests on, as you said, that he just didn't think.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
quote:I know plenty of people, myself included, who aren't conspicuously drunk until they get really drunk.
Really? So a friend of yours wouldn't be able to tell, after say four drinks or so, that you were drunk or at least inebrieted? Just because it's not conspicuous doesn't mean it can't be noticed.
Of course in this situation we weren't there, so we can't say for sure. Granted he's not a rapist, but I think you're skewing to the other end of the spectrum.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Really? So a friend of yours wouldn't be able to tell, after say four drinks or so, that you were drunk or at least inebrieted?
Yes. Of course, after 4 drinks, I wouldn't be inebriated, despite only drinking during special occasions the last few years. Damn my high tolerance!
Posted by El JT de Spang (Member # 7742) on :
Only one or two of my closest friends can tell the difference between me at 2 drinks and me at 9 drinks.
I don't get flushed, I don't slur, I don't laugh or touch too much. At least not till I get to falling-down-drunk, a state that I pretty much avoid whenever possible.
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
Hrm. Well, it's possible that I'm wrong-I admit my experience is anecdotal, and I do know that people can be drunk without showing the usual signs you mentioned, JT.
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
According to Squick, I've consented to a lot of sex, apparently.
-pH
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Squick, I may be misreading you. When you say that you interpreted
quote:she puts a stop to it and tells the guy she doesn't want to go any further because shes really into him and doesn't want to mess it up.
to mean
quote:I'm open to that at some point, but not right now.
Do you mean that he could have understood her to mean "not right now, but maybe in a few hours"?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Noemon, I'm saying in that situation, I can easily see how what he took away from that was essentially, "Not right now."
Posted by Rakeesh (Member # 2001) on :
We don't know for sure what she exactly said in that situation. But let's say she did make it clear that by "not right now" she wasn't saying, "I think it's too early in the night to have sex with you."
Would your impressions change?
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
If she had said clearly "I don't want to go any farther than this with you tonight." or some variation thereof and especially if she added a "even if I get drunk and seem to be okay with it." piece on the end, yeah, I don't think the interpretation I'm offering would fit.
Posted by Noemon (Member # 1115) on :
Well, if what she actually said conveys, as she said that it did, that she didn't want to have sex with him specifically because she was interested in him, and didn't want to mess things up, I don't see how he could understand that to mean "not right now" in any way that would make it something she might be open to later that evening. Can you explain to me how he could have?
Posted by Dan_raven (Member # 3383) on :
I don't think it matters much.
The blame game that is.
To say who's fault it is can only serve one purpose, to free up the other person from taking responsibility for their actions.
She should not have gotten that drunk.
That doesn't give Mr. Stud-Wanabe the right to bed any girl who can mumble an agreement.
He should not have taken advantage of her.
That doesn't give the young woman the right to get blitzed every Saturday night.
It seems luckily that in this situation the only thing harmed was her heart. And that was more harmed by his callowness afterword.
However more than one child, possibly more than one child on this board, were born from the fruits of an over horny boy and a soon to be hung-over girl.
Diseases, from Herpe's to HIV get passed around that way.
Robbery, rape--of a more brutal variety, death and disfigurement all could result.
You let your guard down long enough for him to break your heart. That means next time something else might get broken, something else not so easy to fix.
Be careful.
Posted by jeniwren (Member # 2002) on :
Thing is, with this situation, it doesn't matter who is more at fault, really. What matters is whether or not she wants to have another similar experience. Unlike rape where a girl gets attacked in broad daylight by a perfect stranger (not much you can do about that, really), this situation, whether you call it rape or not, is easily avoidable. It does mean giving up some liberties in drinking, physical affection and flirting. It doesn't mean you can't go to parties and have fun. It does mean recognizing risky situations and avoiding them.
I'd call these risky situations: - Drinking to excess in mixed company. Yes, even when you know the people very well.
- Being alone, in the dark, in a bedroom, with a guy you're attracted to but don't want to have sex with. Even when totally sober.
This doesn't mean I think that women who engage in "risky" behavior *deserve* for bad things to happen to them, but it does mean that they shouldn't feel entirely victimized either. The only way to make sure something doesn't happen again is to try not to set up situations where the odds are decent that that something could happen. In other words, instead of looking on it as "I should be safe because he's going to behave properly.", viewing it as "I should be safe because I'm not going to put myself at unnecessary risk." empowers the woman to be in control. That doesn't mean view every guy as a potential rapist. It just means taking care of yourself.
I call it the difference between flaunting a big wad of cash, flashing it about and keeping that same wad discreetly held in a purse or wallet, only pulling out what you need when you need it. If the flaunter gets robbed, who would be surprised? Do they deserve to get robbed? No, but engaging in risky behavior does increase the odds of bad things happening. The right question is: is it worth the risk? The wrong question is: why did he do this to me? There is no good answer for that, and it's pointless anyway. It's a victim's question, not someone interested in protecting themselves. Ultimately, the one most interested in your personal safety should be you. It would be nice if it was everyone else too, but in reality, that's just not how it ends up being.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
quote:Can you explain to me how he could have?
Probably not. My assesment rests on knowledge of neuro-linguistic programming and an understanding of the psyche of many guys in the current college environment.
I can't find a good link for the NLP stuff, but the Langer copy machine experiment illustrates the basic point, although awkwardly and from a bad angle. People don't listen to what follows a "because". It doesn't register unless it is specifically made to stand out. In this case, the because sounded very much like temporizing rather than a clearly and forcefully articulated reason. Throw in the situation where we have a young and horny guy and yeah, I can easily see him taking away what I said.
Also (and here's where I go all non-PC and everyone is given full permission to hate me) a lot of guys don't take girls of a certain type seriously when they talk about "relationships" especially in situations where they are obviously feeling ambilivently about sex. I've had a girl say pretty much that exact thing, which I had no problem with, and then turn around and basically jump me two days later. Likewise, a certain type of girl (or guy for that matter) uses alcohol as an excuse to do the things that they want to do.
Again, I don't know the situation, but I can easily see it as I described it.
edit: And, again, I'm not trying to justify what this guy did as right or honorable. I'm just trying to give a possible perspective into his state of mind that differs greatly from the "He's a predatory scum bag." that seems to be the majority consensus.
[ November 29, 2005, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: MrSquicky ]
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Actually,
I don't think people were calling the guy a predatory scumbag as much they weren't very willing to make excuses for his behavior. Way back on the 1st page people were pointing out that if alcohol is an excuse for the woman, it's an excuse for the guy.
We're just not making many excuses.
I do think that there's a level of nastiness in his behavior that transcends hers, however.
And while I wouldn't care to play the blame game either, unless it were to spread it around nice and thick so everyone feels a bit more responsible than they did going into the situation.
My consistent point has been, and will continue to be that the guy is not what I would call a gentleman.
And you, MrSquicky, haven't answered the question I'll now ask for a 3rd time.
In the same situation, would you behave as he did? Or, having found yourself having behaved that way, would you feel that you had behaved in an honorable fashion and have no regrets or remorse?
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
Again, I would like to point out that I think it's much less the fact that he slept with her when she was drunk as it is the fact that he didn't want a relationship with her afterwards.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Bob, This is from you:
quote:The guy is clearly an opportunistic &*%*
Perhaps you've changed your view, but this seemed to me to be just about the uniform opinion before I posted.
---
Would I behave as he did? Not now, no, of course not. When I was his age, I don't know. Possibly. I don't actually have a problem with casual sex as long as both partners are physically and emotionally protected. I wouldn't have intentionally done this, but I might have done it in innocence, if the girl was throwing mixed signals. Certainly I've had girls get upset at me because I wasn't willing to go along with their plans of us having a serious relationship. I've also been told that in a few cases, my forceful personality has influenced girls to do things they were perhaps not completely comfortable with.
I do know relatively nice but clueless guys who I'm friends with that I'm pretty sure would do this now without any predatory inclinations. From the perspective that I've been offering (which is merely one possible perspective that I'm not actually tied to) the guy's main failing was that he didn't think. From this view, what happened, happened naturally as an expected consequence of events, not because of opportunitic scheming on his part.
Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
Storm, And I'll point out again that he seems to have tried to have a relationship with her afterwards, just not the serious, exclusive relationship that she wanted.
Posted by ifmyheartcouldbeat (Member # 8692) on :
quote:Originally posted by Dan_raven: That doesn't give the young woman the right to get blitzed every Saturday night.
woah woah..hey now...who said anything about every saturday night. When I said I def wasn't unfamilar with the party scene ..I didn't mean to say i go drinking every weekend.
Mr.S- I never said i was looking for a exclusive relationship with this guy..right away...or at all. Prospective yes. But he never indicated to me he didn't have me as a perspective during the few times we saw each other. In fact, quite the contrary.
Bob S- Posted by MrSquicky (Member # 1802) on :
heartbeat, errr...Am I reading you wrong that he asked you out on a date, then? Because what you said sounded like that to me.
Posted by ifmyheartcouldbeat (Member # 8692) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: Again, I would like to point out that I think it's much less the fact that he slept with her when she was drunk as it is the fact that he didn't want a relationship with her afterwards.
---> "I am actually mostly upset over the fact that people exist like this. Of course i'm upset that I had sex with him, but I'm not sitting here beating myself up over it."
Posted by ifmyheartcouldbeat (Member # 8692) on :
Mr S.-
A week or more later doesn't say anything to me about a relationship...
but hey. Maybe you're right on some levels.
thats what this thread was for.
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
quote: "I am actually mostly upset over the fact that people exist like this. Of course i'm upset that I had sex with him, but I'm not sitting here beating myself up over it."
I have no idea what this means specifically. Sorry. Could mean anything. I had thought you said when you liked him a lot and you didn't want to have sex with him for that reason that you meant it. Are you saying that what I said was false, or no?
Posted by pH (Member # 1350) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: I have no idea what this means specifically. Sorry. Could mean anything. I had thought you said when you liked him a lot and you didn't want to have sex with him for that reason that you meant it. Are you saying that what I said was false, or no?
I think she's saying she's over him.
Also, I agree that waiting a week or more is an indication of non-date type things. But I'm also very attention-needy, so it could just be me.
-pH
Posted by Storm Saxon (Member # 3101) on :
That's good that she's over him.
Most of the focus of the discussion in this thread has been over the sex bit. My point was that I didn't think it was the sex so much as the not wanting to ahve a relationship with her afterward part.
Posted by Leonide (Member # 4157) on :
Bingo
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Mr. Squick...
I felt that way, yes (the opportunistic part), and I still do, but I also don't think I was dogpiling the guy either, eh? I mean, it's not as if I advocated calling him a rapist, which there is some precedent for, apparently, given the kinds of slogans being taught to kids these days (see prior discussion as well).
I think the problem is that you have focussed on a portion of what I and others have been saying about him, and, really, I'm not in a mood to see much of a "good" side to this person.
Even if we make all the excuses you would like us to consider, I would still consider him opportunistic.
In my day, if a woman said "no" or even "not right now" the waiting period after that before you tried again was measured not in minutes, but in effort to get to know the person and let her get to know you.
But then, even in my days of believing in non-committal sex (as an option for me personally -- I have no issue with what other adults do in this regard), I didn't think sex with total strangers (or even casual acquaintances) was a good idea.
So, at any rate, I don't think there's much of a way to call the guy anything but opportunistic. I added the expletive because I get angry with people who do that without considering the feelings of their partner.
Ultimately, I guess I wouldn't mind agreeing to disagree on this, but I have to say that far from thinking this is normal behavior, I think it is inherently wrong and risky behavior, and not the sort of thing I would tolerate in a friend of mine.
Even with alcohol as a lubricant.
Sorry. I know I've just placed myself on the far side of fuddy-duddy in saying this, but there is no way on this Earth that I would simply call this man's behavior acceptable or excusable.
I can understand it, but that doesn't make it right.
I could forgive it, but it doesn't make it right.
And I think he forfeited the right to consider himself a gentleman.
For the sake of a sexual conquest with someone he didn't care about, ultimately, I think he forfeited his honor quite cheaply.
And that DOES qualify him for epithets I have yet begun to use (even in replacement &$^# code).
Sorry, I'm not going to change my mind on this one.
Posted by Bob_Scopatz (Member # 1227) on :
Oh, I forgot to mention the one rule that is inviolate for me.
Unless he is 100% sure that someone WANTS to have sex with him, a gentleman waits.
Period.
Subsumed under this rule is that first time sexual intimacy with a person cannot happen under conditions when the person is inebriated. (in my "rulebook" even a little drunk is too much, for the first time together).
And there is absolutely NO POSSIBLE WAY that this man could KNOW that the woman in question truly WANTED to have sex with him.
Thus, having done the deed, he forfeits a bit of his humanity in the bargain.
Posted by ifmyheartcouldbeat (Member # 8692) on :
quote:Originally posted by Storm Saxon: My point was that I didn't think it was the sex so much as the not wanting to ahve a relationship with her afterward part.
And that is accurate. Sorry i was misunderstanding what you meant by that.
I'm not over what he did. But I'm obviously not spending another minute wasteing my time on him. Learned my lesson there Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
Bob, if you're a fuddy-duddy, I am right there with you. You got it exactly right.
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
Just to reiterate again -- she doesn't think it *was* rape. See my above post for further clarification! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)