Sex: It's a commitment.
 

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/ar...584786,00.html

Ok, the point of my post is not about whether you think it's rape if the woman says yes and then says no during the sex. The point is the way life is being broken down into various ways to go to jail. The way we coddle various social groups by giving them as much power over a situation as possible, allowing them to cry foul if someone so much as blinks in their presence is disturbing. Soon we'll be able to have dinner guests arrested for insulting our cooking.

I wonder when and if people will get a grip.

I am going to say that I'm in the air on this topic. On one hand, yes a woman has the right to say no no matter what action is taking place. For all we know the guy could've intially said that he's using a condom and then doesn't use one, so she says yes but then says no for that reason. That to me would be an acceptable use of the law.

And on the other hand, being a guy, I know how hard it is to stop in the middle of the "act." We like sex and it just feels good to finish. And stopping in the middle just leaves you with our good ole friend blue balls. It's just how we're made.

I agree with you Halx, that it is giving someone a little bit of power and being a little power hungry and that it could explode into something ridiculous. People lose their grip on reality when they want something (more power) and then lose a sense of morale belief or responsibility. Like in my example, the woman should've had a condom on hand "just in case."

But to me, it's both parties should be at fault. One for the guy not being able to stop. And two for her changing her mind, it's misleading and it's wrong. Unfortunately only one of those options are punishable by law. But sex is such a diverse action. It's focused on the individual rights instead of the social acceptability.

"People" have shown no sign of getting a grip. We seem to be back-sliding.
I worry about "us", with the enphasis on the "", yes?

i fear this will be necessary in some situations and in others it will be improperly used against the guy. I forsee some poor guy getting screwed and put in jail by a vindicitive girl just cuz she knew the law and he didnt.

However, the condomn situation I can agree with.

I disagree that allowing someone to decide not to have sex anymore amounts to coddling. It could be argued that men have generally had the most power in most any given sexual situation since the beginning of time; that's why rape is illegal. I don't think that giving people (generally women) a little more protection/power in matters of intercourse is necessarily a bad thing.

Having sex against your will is a far cry from having your cooking insulted and comparing the two is absurd.

Also, for the record, having diverse paths to incarceration is nothing new. Laws break down life into various ways to go to jail, and they've been around a lot longer than your ability to observe legal and sociological phenomena.

Hal, exactly what do you think is new here? It is something new to American society specifically (I'd argue not)? Is it something new to Western Civilization (again no)?

As I read it, your argument is a different version of the "backlash" against "frivolous lawsuits" that seems to pop up about every 3 months on the board. To speak specifically to the rape charge, I think that it's to take into account circumstances where guys pressure women into sex through whatever means (drink, drugs, power, etc), and the woman momentarily caves to the pressure only to realize a few minutes later that it's a mistake. It's a precarious situation, but sexual abuse takes a myriad of forms. Ask some of the women on this board.

I am in agreement with Jazz and Filth on this and see no problem with a) understanding that a woman can change her mind and b) giving her some legal backing when she does.

As for suggesting that someone will abuse this power... I see this a separate issue.

Hurm, I always just assumed that at any point if someone told you to stop and you didn't, you were committing rape.

There is always a flip side. While I was out clubbing one night about six months ago, I saw a friend of mine leave with a very cute Irish redhead. The next day, I sent him a text message teasing him about getting lucky, and he responded with a laugh and a "kind of", as she'd given him a blowjob instead of full sex.

A week later, police showed up at his door and arrested him for sexual assault. He spent the night in a jail cell, wask questioned in the early hours of the morning, and then bailed. He's still waiting to see if he'll be charged (he's been rebailed twice).

As a woman, I'm glad that there is protection against rape and sexual assault, but it's scary how some women (a minority) use that power to do seriously fucked-up things for no apparent reason. I am presuming that my friend is innocent, to be fair, and we still don't know if he will be charged. But the experience certainly shook him up, and he's not so much as approached a girl since. I don't think that's very fair on him at all.

Agreed. In a boxing ring, if I keep whaling on my opponent after his manager has thrown in the towel, it's assault. How is this different?

Women already have plenty of power to jerk men around with sex. This doesn't significantly shift the balance.

But it does - it changes the level of the consequences. Giving a guy blue balls, or manipulating him emotionally is one thing... putting him in jail or giving him a criminal record (and in the UK that means the sex offenders' register which will make it harder for you to get a job, teach, etc) is something completely different.

Shotgun weddings anyone?

Seriously, every legal system is open to abuse. It's human nature, and it's why no culture has never perfected anything.

My point is, women already can (and do) do that. This new law doesn't make that any harder or easier, and it makes black-and-white something that may have formerly been a gray area for some people.

I do wish you'd be a little more explicit with your post. Despite all the other posts in this thread (which suggests that they understood you), I can't make heads or tails of yours. Specifically, I don't understand what your position is. You say your point is "not about whether you think it's rape if the woman says yes and then says no during the sex," but then you say things that sound like they are questioning this very premise. It, indeed, sounds like your is about whether withdrawing consent during sex is rape.

So, perhaps you can answer this simple qustion and it may clear things up for me. In regards to rape and consent, what would be an example of "people getting a grip?"

The sex offender's register is one thing but falsely accusing someone of a crime is not unique to rape. I can report to the authorities that I witnessed you robbing me. The shit only falls on me when there's an investigation that shows no evidence of such an act...

Getting a grip would mean that people no longer felt the need to create laws for every possible protection they could offer to someone. This goes for inane lawsuits as well. At some point, people have to take responsibility for their actions. The law proposed in the article is asking to be abused. In fact it is so litigious, that more money will be spent in the courts determining whether a law was broken than there will be spent for sexual education, which in my opinion would reduce the number of cases to begin with.

There is no such thing as "inane" lawsuits. There are only fraudulent suits where the claimant creates an injury (bodily, property or otherwise) and legitimate suits where there are actual injuries. You're also confusing criminal and civil law which are two very different things. Litigation has absolutely nothing to do with criminal actions.

Do you mean to say that you think sexual education would reduce the number of rape cases? I highly doubt it. Sexual education has nothing to do with a man's motive to rape a woman, nor does it have to do with a woman making a false accusation of rape. I don't get your point.

Do you think rape should be illegal? As far as I can tell, it seems like you think "it was in before she said no" should be a valid defense in a rape trial.

It seems to me to be a clarification of an issue that was a former gray area for some, and when it comes to something with serious consequences such as those that come with rape, both parties having a clear understanding about exactly does and doesn't constitute rape is something that can protect both. A man who goes into a sexual encounter knowing that the woman has the right to withdraw consent at any time is less likely to be confused regarding what he is and isn't entitled to do later on if it does happen. At the same time, the woman's "no" is given a little more power.

Clearing up a gray area in something like this is something that is almost entirely a positive for both sexes.

It seems to me that this would be a very valid defense in a trial. You know that the defense lawyers would say something similar to this as it would be hard to tell when the actual "rape" occured considering there was already consentual penetration.

While I understand what you're saying in the abstract, I still don't understand how it applies to the example you've brought up in this thread. In the case of withdrawing consent during sex, what would be "taking responsibility?" Forcing yourself to go through with it? She let me in so I have a right to cum?

Education will make a girl think twice before allowing a man to have sex with her if she's not sure. The more people know about a situation before they get into it, the less likely they will be to back out of it once they are there.

This law essentially "creates" rape. It also creates fear, uncertainty and is an assault on pre-marital sex. Rape to me, is saying "no" from the start and attempting to physically resist sexual contact. Everything else is a consequence of poor judgement for which people need to "get a grip" on.

I would hope that it would be pretty obvious that the rape occurred in the interval of time after the party in question withdrew their consent and before the intercourse ended. In any case, the laws in question would seem to clarify this point.

so if you're having sex with a woman, and then 5 minutes into the session she says no and you push one more time before pulling out it's rape? How about if you were cumming at the exact moment she said no?? Unless the woman has a stopwatch and can say exactly when she said no then I feel that it would be extremely difficult to determine when the actual rape began. In some cases, it would certainly be easy.. but IMO in most it would not be.

I'm in agreement with Hal that this creates rape.

The idea that rape requires physical resistance on the part of the victim has been discarded pretty much everywhere in the US. Once she says "No," regardless of what went before, and regardless of how much she resists physically, if he proceeds, he's raping her.

I ask how one can possibly be raped without physical struggle, not considering coersion, disability, inability to move or threat.

All I can possibly imagine is a fully capable girl under no duress passively allowing a dude to take her clothes off and fuck her while she just lays there, offering no resistance except for "No."

Sounds rotten. I need more.

The scenario that you're describing happened to a good friend of mine in college about 15 years ago. One night we were all out partying and he (a sophomore) hooked up with a girl (a junior) that had had the hots for him for several weeks. They were both really hammered when they left the bar and went back to her place. Sex ensued. The next day, she decided that she never intended to have sex with him and only consented because she was so drunk.

This became a huge arguement on campus, as you can probably imagine. He was basically condemned without any sort of trial since the police refused to prosecute once they got his version of the story (which was that he regretted it and never had any intention of sleeping with her). It went before the student judicial committee eventually, and they claimed assault charges against each other. It was one of the biggest wastes of time I've ever seen.

That said, I think the judicial system worked pretty well in this case, although the student society failed pretty miserably. She never objected during intercourse and only expressed doubts afterwards. He was an asshole and didn't talk to her after the fact which was just fuel for the fire. However, the local prosecutor was ready to press charges until he interviewed some of us that were with the two at the bar beforehand and learned that my friend really wasn't the aggressor in the situation.

That example aside, I think that anytime you're having sex with someone for the first time, you need to be thinking about more than just yourself. If you (as the man) have pressured her into sex, you need to be ready if she objects. If she does, and you go ahead and finish, you're a rapist in my mind. Let's not forget that this isn't happening in a vacuum and that there are circumstances that are going to lead up to any rape accusations. Those circumstances are what will or will not give credibility to the charges.

I'm going to have to get personal here, because it's the only way I see this issue. I agree with you, Halx, in terms of my own experience, and ONLY my experience... no one else's applies here. In my eyes, I was at least partly responsible for blacking out and losing my virginity to a stranger who picked me up off of Bourbon Street in New Orleans. A stranger whom I never, EVER in my sober and right mind would have given assent to... I'd been waiting for marriage, up to 24 years of age. This was NOT how I (or anyone, I believe) wanted to remember having sex the first time.

Does that make it rape? I've never been able to figure it out. Maybe you folks have some insight for me, with all your opinions on the matter. I'm sure I'm not the only woman on the board with a similar story.

I had taken a trip down to New Orleans for waterski camp (as a grad student) and allowed 3 previously-unknown college guys and girls to ride down in my car with me from PA to save money. I knew that was a mistake within 10 minutes of being in the car with them... they were tossing back Colt 45's while driving and throwing glass bottles at highway signs... but I went along with it (again, my responsibility for not standing up to them, in my own car).

After 24 hours of driving, we were on Bourbon Street and having a good time, and I was drinking more than I ever had before. My mistake, which I freely admit, was in drinking too much with people whom I did not know, and had NO reason to trust to take care of me (as opposed to the way my friends and I take care of each other when drinking). I suppose I thought they would watch out for me. Would you say that I should have "gotten a grip?" Maybe so, given what I had just observed on our 24 hour road trip. Again, an issue of personal responsibility vs. my naivete in believing that humans would take care of each other.

When I came to the next morning, the last thing on my mind was going after the guy for rape, since I was quite traumatized by what I woke up to (being naked in the shower with a man, when I had never done anything like that before in my life). The only means by which I gave consent was by being blacked out, and thus not having any means of consent or dissent. What would a judge say? Apparently, I was all for it when I was drunk... so he told me.

I got the guy's name and address, we e-mailed about what happened, and he even mailed me my camera and forgotten beads back. But I never took it to court. Why? I did feel that it was at least partly my responsibility, what happened... especially the getting drunk part. But my point to Halx earlier was that sex education had nothing to do with it. I was blacked out and had absolutely no memory or will to do (or not do) anything. It wouldn't have mattered if I was Dr. Ruth at that point, in terms of "sex ed." It wouldn't have even mattered if I did say "NO!", because I don't remember any part of the act, or what either of us did to get there. It happened because of a bad situation that I put myself in, and someone took advantage of it. I've never really known who to blame, so I haven't blamed anyone.

Does that mean I was responsible enough to "get a grip," or does it mean that I was a victim? Or both? Can anyone really assign that label to me, or anyone who went through something like that?

You answer this yourself:

I would add incapacity, such as being unconscious, or fear of being harmed if she resists physically to that list.

You need more than the girl saying "no"? It seems a simple equation to me. If she says "no", he doesn't have consent. If he has sex without consent, that's rape. Physical resistance is a good indicator of lack of consent, sure, but so is saying "no".

My sympathies to you, abaya.


Here are some scenarios to give a little context:

I have sex with a child (or, really, anyone under 18). They consented so it can't be rape, right?

I drug a girl and then have sex with her. She didn't say no so it's not rape, right?

I find a girl who's near unconcious from taking something (maybe it was extasy, maybe it was crack), I'm not sure. I have sex with her and she doesn't say no.

What do these three scenarios have in common? Are any of them an example of rape? One thing they have in common is that the girl never said no...

I think we need to separate the moral viewpoint from the legal one in this circumstance.

From a moral perspective, no means no, every time under every circumstance.

The legal perspective is more problematic. The circumstances in question will nearly always be a question of "he said / she said", creating a dilemma in enforcement. I see a point in having a law on the books to make a point, but I'd be reluctant to use it.

Gilda, my point is that it's fairly straightforward what rape is in those situations. If the female doesn't object, yet is under duress or incapacitated (that was the word I was looking for) in any way, then it can be rape. But to give a guy clear entry and then slam the door shut while his dick is still inside is nothing but a device. I agree that it can "turn into" rape by suddenly becoming unwelcomely aggressive, but if a girl is not under any duress, she needs to make a physical effort to resist the man.

To sum it up, the woman needs to do her part in resisting if she is able. A single word might be appropriate when it comes to BDSM and role playing, but when it comes to just plain consentual sex, the thought that it can turn to rape without an exclamation is sad.

I disagree, for reasons stated above.

If that exclamation is "No", that should be all that is required to indicate lack of consent.

It seems like you agree with the spirit of the law, but you're condemning it based solely on a subset of possible scenarios in which it could come to play.

There is no basis in fact for the assertion that this law will only result in men being fucked over by regretful women. In fact, as multiple anecdotes suggest, if a woman felt the need to cry rape she doesn't need this kind of protection to do it.

I don't understand your flippety-floppety attitude. No one, including your linked article, said that rape could happen without an exclamation. Having said that, it can be rape even without an exclamation. If I have you gagged, you can't exclaim anything but rape can still happen.

Rape doesn't come out of dissent. Rape happens without consent. She doesn't have to say no, she just has to not say yes.

Just so we're clear... Suppose she consented to sex but, during the act, she clearly says "no." If he continues to have sex with her against her will, is this rape?

People get this weird idea all the time. Some people object to maternity leave because they feel women will take advantage of the "free vacation." Free vacation? She has to have a child for that "free vacation," so it's highly unlikely anyone is going to try to "take advantage" of it...

Why would someone accuse you of rape after the fact? Because rape trials are fun? Any accusation of rape is worth an investigation. As filtherton has pointed out, you don't need the right to rescind consent during sex to screw men over with accusations so it hardly aggrevates that issue...

I'm stating that putting a law in the books to define a situation that has already been defined is bad. We already know what rape is, but placing a switch that any female can flip to get her partner in jail is the problem. I'll state again that this is an attack on pre-marital sex.

It's on the books for clarification so that the situation may be legally unambiguous when it happens.

...and why do you keep bring up "premarital sex?" How is it an attack on premarital sex? Are you suggesting that a husband can't rape his wife?

No, I'm stating that it creates more tension in an already testy area of life.

And it's a lot harder to produce evidence when the accusation is sexual. What about my friend who got himself blown by a chick who later claimed it wasn't consensual? In this case it's pretty much all a matter of her-word-against-his, and I'm willing to guess it's going to either come down to character witnesses or a presumption of guilt / innocence kind of thing. There is no evidence to consider, really.

Let it be stated that I am not defending actual rape. Although it was not a question of virginity, I had a similar experience to abaya when I was slipped a date-rape drug and woke up in a strange apartment. It was during the short time I was working as a stripper, so I was pretty pessimistic about my chances of my character standing up to whoever it was, so I didn't even go to the police. I had HIV/STD tests and that was it. I also had no chance to say no... but I had no chance to say yes either. I am aware that this is not entirely what we are discussing so I shall end this thread derailment here. :)

As far as i could tell from skimming the article, no one is putting a law on the books. The article mainly concerned interpretations of laws already on the books made by judges. If the situation was already suitably defined legally there would have been no need for them to provide further definition.

I don't understand your problem with the whole "switch" issue. How does this place any more power in the hands of women than rape laws already do? Women, if they so desire, already have a switch to flip to get their partner in jail. I would be willing to bet that the number of women who actually do "flip the switch" is incredibly small, certainly much smaller than the number of women who actually get raped.

This is not an attack on premarital sex. How does it create more tension? Do you sleep with women whom you expect to accuse you of rape?

And Abaya, I missed your post somehow. I left out the instances where victims are unable to account for their own actions. This is a prime example of rape. I was hoping someone would give me the benefit of the doubt if I forgot to mention every single possible instance in which rape can occur. My comments were made under the assumptions that both participants are in fully capable mental capacity.

Yeah, that's pretty much what I did. I wasn't working as a stripper, but I was drunk out of my skull in New Orleans. Not to mention there were absolutely no witnesses (and my "acquaintances" surely didn't give a shit). All the evidence pointed to it being consensual, even though I never would have given consent. But the question remains, is it "rape" if the woman had no chance/ability to say yes OR no? And if no one was there to hear her say either word, how does it stand up in court?

I don't see it as a thread derailment... I think real-life examples are extremely relevant, given that this is mostly a discussion among men about how to define rape of a woman. Most of you are keeping this in the abstract. Bring it down to the reality level. What kind of call would you make in mine, or Sharon's situation? This is that part of the TFP where you say what you "really think," no holds barred.

EDIT: Missed your post, Hal... thanks for the addendum. I admit, it's a bit weird to hear someone calling my situation outright "rape." I've never used that word when talking about it, except in this thread. I have to say, though, that even though you assume that both people are in full mental capacity... I really doubt that is what happens in a LOT of rape cases (especially unreported ones). As a woman who did something that helped precipitate that consequence (e.g. I got totally drunk), I and maybe others find it difficult to point the finger entirely at the man. Not that it would have been proven, anyway.

Yes, it is.

Sharon, you say that "it's a lot harder to produce evidence when the accusation is sexual" as if it supports how much rape laws can be abused when, in fact, the opposite is true. I don't know how things are in the UK but in the US of A you are innocent until proven guilty. That means that you can only be convicted of rape if actual evidence proves it. So, falsely accusing someone of rape ultimately does little good.

I've never understood why people think trials are a toss up. They are not. In the US, The odds of getting a conviction are stacked heavily against the state. Are things that different in the UK, Sharon?

abaya, maybe you didn't read (or understand) my earlier post but I assure you that sex without consent is, by definition, rape...

People just need to Harden the fuck up...

What if the bloke is some 6'6" muscle bound ox, and the girl a little petit 5' girly? I can think of many situations where people have gone into sex only wanting to because the other is putting pressure on them to do so.

Would you prefer it for that girl to try and physically resist that bloke? Granted its an extreme example, but being able is not always a luxury.


As to the post by KnifeMissile, we invented your legal system, innocent until proven guilty is the same over here. However, because our legal system sucks, the actual level of rape prosecutions compared to complaints is microscopic (single percentage figures).

Rape here is defined, paraphrased as 'pentration without consent', on any part of the body. Key part, without consent. With any law there will be abuses, and those people deserve to be punished. But i do believe that this type of law is better in the long run.

This is bullshit and you know it. The idea of the justice system here is 'innocent until proven guilty'. It's a fallacy. People will always place some sort of guilt association with the defendant. That's just human nature. There are plenty of men in jail for rape that never committed the act. There are many more who did. The system isn't always correct.


I don't know what state you are in, but around here in yee-haw land, convictions are more common than aquittals.

I don't think anyone here is advocating rape. I think we're merely stating that when we have a system that is abused already, a law like this could do nothing more than facilitate that abuse. Will it help? I'm sure it will in some instances, but it would be my speculation that it would end up doing more damage than people intended.

No, I got your earlier post, thanks.

But here's the thing. Obviously, sex without consent is rape. I get that. But in my case, the guy was drunk (he said), I was clearly drunk, and I was asking *him* to go back to his place... because I thought he was actually a friend of mine that I knew (I was that fucked up).

Basically, I was acting like I was sober (which happens when you are blacked out, apparently) and thus giving "consent," even though if I was REALLY sober, there's no way in hell I'd have gone home with that dude. It was like I was an utterly different person, both mentally and physically. Extremely surreal and disturbing.

So was I giving consent? My words and body were giving consent, though it was not my true "self" that was really speaking. Apparently, I said yes the whole time and enjoyed myself (again, his account, and my fuzzy memory from when I began to sober up). I thought I was having sex this friend of mine, not a stranger. How could that case have EVER stood up in court?

If I had accused that guy of rape, I'm sure someone would have thought that I was taking advantage of the situation, since by all accounts I would have appeared to be giving consent. Would that be abusing the system? I kind of think it would be.

Tell me, why is it that my having sex with a 17 year old rape? I mean, she consented and she enjoyed it! Yet it's rape...

Normally, I'd let you come back to me with this 'cause I prefer that people think for themselves but, considering your responses to my posts (or lack, thereof), I'm sensing that you just don't get it so I'm going to spell it out for you.

It's rape because children are incapable of giving consent.

A sweet and sexy 17 year old was asking for sex and enjoyed it but it's still rape because she is incapable of giving consent.

You were raped because you were incapable of giving consent. In your own words, you were "that fucked up." Being stupidly drunk and being drugged are no different (alcohol is a drug, you know...). You were incapable of giving consent (as is the 17 year old) so any sex you had during that time is nonconsentual and, by definition, rape.

Now, you have no evidence that it was rape so going to trial is most likely futile. You probably don't even want to go to trial since they're far from fun. However, a lack of evidence (or charge) doesn't mean there's a lack of a crime. How many unsolved murders are there? The victims were still killed, though...


I "know it?" "It's just human nature?" Please, what's with the crappy rhetoric? What about your nature? In order to convict, you have to have twelve people unanimously agree upon the defendant's guilt. How many jurors hate "the system" and think it's as unfair as you do? How many of them think the government is corrupt? It only takes one...

Go tell O.J. Simpson about "human nature..."

If your state has a lot of convictions, surely it's because they have a lot of evidence. I know laws differ from state to state but I'm pretty sure that every state must make a prima facie case before proceeding to trial. That means that you can't just go to trial and hope for the best. You have to be able to prove your case before going to trial. This is why not every complaint goes to court...

I don't think the law is nearly as abused as people like to think and I don't see how a little clarification hurts, here...

Actually, no it wouldn't be rape unless your state has their AOC set at 18.

Look, we read and hear lawyers (prosecution and defense) talk about the way the system all the time. They talk about the fact that there is a guilt association with defendants. Jurors will often think "why would he even be here if he isn't guilty". I think the problem lies in the fact that most people <b>DON't</b> think the system is faulty.. not that too many people think the system is faulty.

In this state, there isn't necessarily alot of evidence. Hell, you can take a look at the Duke Rape Case as a prime example. It's not just here that it happens. Girl cries rape, man goes to trial, girl cries, man gets a fat one in prison for the next 25 years.

I'm not saying that it doesn't happen. Don't take it that way. Rape does happen and is very real and very horrific. However, I just think that the laws are abused and can be done so easily. To put faith in the system blindly and say that it works is just silly. A first appearance or "prima facie" case doesn't really hold much water. In this state your first appearance is to simply plead your status and then hear your bail. Then your probable cause hearing presents some evidence by both sides. More often than not (I have lawyer friends) the probable cause doesn't really mean shit. The judge will see a probable cause as that is a pretty broad term. Then it goes to trial. So basically, what I'm saying is that if you want to hold faith that a prima facie case will be your saving grace should you get into trouble, you should make sure you have plenty of vacation time stored up at work.

Or... yes, it would be if your age of consent is 18. I'm getting the sense you don't want to see my side of it and just want to plead your case. I think this because your quote makes it sound as if what I said is simply not true unless this one condition is met. It happens to be a common age of consent and is often true. Regardless, the point has been lost in your response. Was this deliberate? Do you not want people to see my point?

Whatever age of consent is in your state, in my opinion, it's pretty high and, yet, they are incapable of giving consent. That's the essense of rape: consent. abaya was clearly raped and I, personally, find it weird that there's any debate over the issue...

I'm sure most people don't but... twelve? Surely, this will depend on where you are but unless the evidence is strong, how hard can it be to find one dissenter?

I don't know if this exemplifies your point. the Duke rape case sounds like an attempt at a miscarriage of justice but it hasn't worked out well for the prosecution and appears to be normalizing itself. That sounds like a case of the justice system working, not failing...

Rape cases are pretty rare and not highly publicized (or maybe they just seem rare 'cause they're not highly publicized) but I've never heard of a conviction based on a he said/she said case. Indeed, personally, I don't see how such a case can even go to trial. Now, I'm not a lawyer so, really, what do I know but can you link a case where someone was convicted based on her testimony alone?

I assure you that I never once thought your stance is that rape doesn't happen. Two women in this thread, alone, were raped. Do I give you the impression that I think you're a moron?

I'm not putting any more faith in the system than I had, before. How does being able to withdraw consent during the act help falsely accuse someone of rape? That makes no sense. You can falsely accuse them without that clarification. All it does is allow a complainant to tell the God's honest truth and still file a valid rape charge. This hardly seems like a bad thing for me...

So, you're saying that, in your state, you don't really have to have probable cause. You can go to a judge with no evidence say "c'mon man!" and he'll say "oh, okay..." and let you proceed to the grand jury hearing? Really? Believe me, I understand that the criminal justice system is far from perfect, ham sandwiches and all, but we're approaching tin foil hat territory, now...

Do me a favor and drop the hostile tone and assumption that I'm somehow beneath your reasoning. I understand what you're trying to say, and I've read all your posts... but I see no reason for you to use such an angry tone.

Okay, here is where we seem to disagree. Who judges "incapability" of giving consent? I was 24 years old. I got myself drunk, and I made myself incapable of remembering anything that would happen to me. I was not drugged, I was not seduced. I fucked myself up. I apparently gave consent to this guy (verbally and physically), though I have no memory of doing so either way.

NONE of that takes away from his crime of taking advantage of the situation, I agree with you on that. However, I do not see myself as some "victim" in that situation. I put myself there, and I made choices that allowed a series of events to take place. Two people are responsible, and I just don't see how any judge or court could split up that responsibility with any fairness. That's why I have/had a problem calling this "rape."

I apologize. It didn't seem bad at the time but, in retrospect, that sentence was rather condescending. I meant to convey what I would normally do and that I was going to make an exception to my usual behaviour because of a lack of response to an earlier post. I took that lack of response as a lack of understanding so I was going to be more explicit in order to expedite said understading.

Well, if we're simply not capable of judging consent then why do we even define it? What's with the age of consent?

Obviously, as a society, we feel that we can reasonably judge consent. The fact that you incapacitated yourself doesn't mean you "asked for it." As my previous scenario list tried to demonstrate, incapacitating ones self doesn't constitute consent. She can't say no so she must be saying yes?

Again, just because you are physically capable of saying yes doesn't mean you are able to consent. You have to be of sound mind to give consent and you've clearly demonstrated that you were not that.

It depends on what you mean by responsible.

I can agree that you put yourself into a situation where you increased your chances of getting raped. Like walking down a dark alleyway or practicing prostitution without due precaution, or finding the most mean and selfish men you can find and telling them you'd have sex with them but then changing your mind at the last minute and watching them get very angry. All of these women have deliberately taken actions that increased their chances of getting raped. Did they all deserve it? Did any of them deserve it? If they deserved it, does that mean the rapist is absolved of his crime? It's okay to rape girls who "are asking for it?"

In my opinion, you are responsible for your actions but that doesn't mean you deserve to be raped and it certainly doesn't free the rapist of guilt. I can't say it's okay to rape girls who put themselves in a position to be raped yet I can't help but think this is your position...

Thanks for the kinder tone, KM. I appreciate it.

No, no, no, and no. I did not make any allusion to me or anyone else "deserving" it. No one deserves to be raped, period. We agree there, particularly on this point... Yep, my only point was that I was responsible for my actions (hence what the OP and this thread are partially about). I did not say that I deserved it, or that the guy wasn't an asshole for doing it. I think the fault still lays most heavily on the guy, but I saw no point in pursuing that legally, for my own reasons.

And I find it interesting that up until now, here on an anonymous internet forum, not a single person IRL called the situation "rape." And I told quite a variety of people about this situation... (very close friends, both conservative and liberal, men and women). Although, it's true that I didn't tell my parents... they might have been the only ones to label it that way. But what parent wouldn't respond in that manner.

Again, I never said it was "okay." That is not my position. My thoughts are that in some situations, the woman is not 100% a victim, and the man is not 100% a perpetrator. Yes, the man can always overwhelm the woman... but when physical force is not involved (e.g., in my case, the dude was a wimp... I could have beat this guy up), it's more an issue of both sides making poor decisions. Then it's very difficult to point the finger entirely at one person.

Responsibility and justice are complicated in some situations, I've found.

I can start to agree with you here, on the idea of consent. Sound mind.

But what happens when the other person is also not of sound mind (the guy was, clearly, drunk as well)? Or if I appeared to be of sound mind (a common occurrence, when one is blacked out)? It's all very gray area, at that point. Hence the complications.

Okay, it sounds like we're clearing a lot of things up.

I very rarely have a kind tone on this board but I never attack anyone, especially personally. I may be more condescending than I realize and I'll keep a lookout for that...

Where do you live? I'm going on a world tour soon(ish) and maybe I'll be stopping by your city? Then I can tell you "IRL" that you were raped. Then, maybe we can have a couple of drinks and then have ourselves some fun!

I don't think it's just "real life." So far, I'm the only person on this board who thinks you were raped and that astonishes me. I find it a little disturbing and I'm the guy who stands up for the rights of pedaphiles!

I can agree that life is complicated and the law doesn't always reflect that but I don't see it in this case. You talk of partial responsiblity but I honestly don't see how you putting yourself in a situation to be raped lessens his guilt at all. It was easy to rape you therefore it's not as bad? Really?

Legally, I don't know.

"I swear, I thought she was older than that!" Is that a defense for statutory rape? Even if it were a defense, does that mean it wasn't really rape?

I agree that it can get complicated, especially if the rapist is impaired, as well. It's hard to imagine that both parties are sufficiently impaired to lack responsibility whlie still being physically capable of arranging and having sex. However, if that's the case then, perhaps, it wasn't rape?

You aren't the only one.

I'm with KM and Gilda.

Of course, in the Duke case that didn't happen, which is really rather amazing. Despite a crusading DA willing to cover up evidence, a racial environment stacked against the defendants, a national media firestorm, a campus eager to prove that is was PC and not in thrall to a bunch of "jocks," the accused young men apparently are going to get off. They don't even have to go to trial. They aren't going to jail for 25 years, they're going back to college. And the real wrongdoer in the case, the DA, looks like he is going to be punished. Lots of people like to throw around the "girl crying rape, guy gets screwed" stereotype, but it's usually devoid of any evidence that this is actually a common occurrence.

We can debate whether abaya was or was not raped, but if the case did go to trial and abaya gave the testimony she gave here, there's no way the guy would be convicted. I seriously doubt a prosecutor would even pursue the charge.

As to the original law, consider this scenario from Dan Savage's column.

http://www.thestranger.com/seattle/S...ove?oid=125353

I don't think anyone's going to disagree: this is rape. But the woman clearly consented to a sexual act. By all appearances it was an act that might involve pain and domination. This guy has a passable defense if the woman isn't allowed to withdraw consent once it is given.

I shouldn't post when I'm this tired.

I'm hesitant to call what happened to abaya rape.

She did not give her consent, or at least didn't, in the sense that an underage person didn't, even if they said yes. However, if there is rape, then would there not also be a rapist? A rapist would be one who intentionally has sex, knowing no consent had been given. Now from what I've read, the man involved thought he had consent, and may not have continued if he thought that abaya didn't want it to continue. So we have a person who was raped (did not give consent), but not a rapist (was given consent). How does one resolve that conflict?

As usual, alcohol confuses an otherwise clear situation.

This is the point I'm getting at. While I appreciate you and several others on this thread (Hal, Gilda, Sharon) being bold enough to call my situation a rape, I'm still not convinced... because there is really no way to say how drunk the guy was, since no one was there to measure our BAC. I can say for SURE that I was completely wasted (more than I've ever been, before or after that night... and that says something), and that the guy himself was also so wasted as to have missed his flight that morning when we sobered up (again, no pity here whatsoever--but I'm just adding that fact to story).

Certainly, KM, you make a good point about how anyone could be so impaired as to not be able to arrange/have sex... but again, there I was, a virgin in every sense of the word... totally blacked out... and yet capable of having sex and apparently enjoying myself (and I do remember when I was starting to sober up, that I *was* enjoying myself somehow... until the reality hit me, that I wasn't with my friend and I had just had sex with a strange man). I'm telling you, being impaired by alcohol doesn't mean one is disabled, especially when blacked out.

So, if you ask me, Zyr has captured my dilemma exactly with this:
Yep, I'm convinced from the e-mail exchanges with the guy afterwards, that by all accounts he really did think it was consensual. Granted, he could have made all that up to cover his ass. But what kind of conscious rapist would keep in touch via e-mail after the event (writing down all the details OF the event, thus recording them to paper), and then go so far as to mail my camera and other left belongings to me, along with an accurate return address and even a copy of his damned orchestra audition CD? As well as a contact phone number.

So yes, perhaps I was raped... because I was not of sound mind when it happened, I was taken advantage of. But I also gave consent, in the usual form (verbal & physical), and what young, horny asshole would have acted differently in that situation? I mean, come on... how many TFP'ers have been drunk at a party or bar, met a drunk girl, and got it on, only to have one or both people regret it all (or forget it all) the next day? More than would care to admit, I'm sure.

And is that rape, too? Does the woman have a right to press charges in that kind of situation (what this thread is all about)? Or, as iccky said:

I'll admit it.

The situation raises another question. If his BAC level turned up higher than Abaya's and he he regretted it in the morning would Abaya be guilty of rape?

Thanks for being honest, Stan. I think it's really helpful to the discussion here. I hope there are more honest people out there (on both sides) who will step up here and keep the thread as concrete as possible.

Precisely the kind of confusion that I'm talking about here. As far as I can tell, in the taxi when the guy picked me up, I kept asking if it was alright to go back to HIS place (a hostel in town, though not the same as mine). Again, the whole consent thing started pretty early.

Granted, the guy himself remembered more of the night than I did (from what he said), and thus could have made up the entire story about me giving consent... but who would be able to decide that? Not me. I'm capable of saying and/or doing just about anything when I'm drunk, and that's a known fact about me. I go crazy. But again... what kind of rapist provides a real name, address, phone number, and e-mail to an otherwise anonymous woman whom he could have simply picked up, fucked, and left for dead/passed out at any time?

Basically, the whole thing was just surreal as hell (literally), and I have no real conclusions about any of it. I don't know who to blame. I get angry at myself, at the guy, at the ride-along acquaintances who didn't give a shit about any of it. More than anything, the whole thing makes me pretty sad, though there are a few positive things that I found from the whole situation. But that's not what this thread is about. :)

This was my point, earlier. He says he was drunk but managed to do quite a bit and remember it all. How drunk was, he, really?

A rapist who knows you have no evidence against him can and will do anything he likes. I don't think you can read too much into this friendly demeaner. I don't think the typical date rapist would leave anyone for dead, either, but I don't consider it any less rape...

While it's entirely possible that he made up the whole story, because there are no witnesses and any other evidence, I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt which is why I haven't accused him of lying.

If I were to judge from personal experience (which most people tell me is unreasonable), I'd say that there is no amount of alcohol that can rob you of your reason and responsiblity. Most people would disagree with me so I can only assume they're affected in ways I'm not. I've also never had a hang-over so perhaps that says something...

Here's an intereseting defense. If I'm too drunk to know what I'm doing, am I responsible for drinking and driving? I'm too drunk to know that drinking and driving is wrong so how can I be guilty?

Well, if he was as drunk as you were then I suppose you can only blame yourself for getting yourself that drunk...

Heh, no offense, but perhaps you haven't been drunk enough to make this kind of judgment? :) Which isn't a bad thing, whatsoever... (it'd be nice to have never experienced a hangover, personally). But yeah, if extreme amounts of alcohol can be said to do anything (other than poisoning your liver and entire body for 24 hours), it's robbing people of their good judgment and common sense. That is, their reason and responsibility.

I didn't stick around long enough to find out how hungover the guy was, but I can tell you that I had one hell of a hangover for 24 hours after the fact. At times I've wondered if someone put something in one of my many drinks that night... entirely possible. Perhaps the guy himself did it, which could account for what knocked me on my ass, mentally, for 8 hours straight (for me, it's hard to believe that alcohol alone could black me out for that long... my longest blackouts in safer circumstances were an hour or two, at most). But again, no one will ever really know.

Btw... on the drinking and driving point. I never said the guy was not guilty. Nor did I ever say that I deserved what happened. Those things are undisputed. All I am saying is that I was not 100% a victim. That much, I know, is true. Maybe it's for my own sanity to believe that, but it's what's in my head.

I've taken no offense. Indeed, what have you said that was at all offensive?

I've been as drunk as physically possible. Not only do I love alcohol but I love the taste of alcohol and don't care for getting drunk (unlike most people who seem to drink to get drunk, the taste be damned!). There were times when drank so much that I would vomit if I were to drink any more and, thus, it would be physically impossible to get any drunker. Even at these times, I still knew what I was doing and would still remember it the next day. As an example of my consciousness, I would make sure to drink plenty of non-alcoholic fluids before going to bed in an attempt to avoid a hang-over the next morning 'cause they don't sound like fun.

Thus, personally, all these drunken "I had no idea what was going on and don't remember" stories seem incredible for me. Am I really so different from the average person? ...but now we're diverging quite far from the thread topic...

This is pretty seriously off-topic, but without a BAC measurement, what you've written here is meaningless. You're taking the anecdotal evidence of your own response to alcohol and using it to discount the experience of a whole swath of people.

Technically, since alcohol takes some time to digest, it's possible to overload the system before the stomach has time to react. If you haven't been hospitalized for alcohol poisoning, you haven't been "as drunk as it is physically possible to get". It may have been impossible for you to have ingested any more alcohol at that time, but that's different from having pegged the drunk meter for all humanity.

All that said, I guarantee you your judgment was impaired at that time.

Look, at the end of the day, rape is in the eye of the beholder. Abaya doesn't "feel" raped. She "feels" like what happened was, she got drunk and in a moment of drunken bad judgment did something she regrets. She's being WAY responsible for herself and her life here. I, for one, decline to turn her into a victim of something. She's got way more power with the situation if she can keep her own responsibility for it (which is different from blaming herself, which I don't hear her doing either).

Rape is in the eye of the beholder. That's what this law is about (anybody remember the OP?). This law codifies that if at any point either party "feels" raped, it's rape. That's how it IS. May as well be law.

(Apologies to the populace)

With judgment impaired
people react all the time.
Otherwise, sometimes.

Just to follow up... nope, you haven't gotten yourself to the point of blackout probably because you haven't drank to the point of vomiting, yet. I don't know the biology of it, but I've witnessed it several times with friends as well as in myself. You can drink to the point of throwing up, then vomit... and go right back to drinking, getting yourself in even deeper.

After several iterations of this process, you get to the point where the brain is so overloaded that it starts to switch off its "recording mode" (the parts of the brain that control memory), as well as any rational thought processes. You forget to drink water, you forget that you're a virgin (in my case), you forget that you care about anything at all, really. All circuits go down until the liver can begin to cope and shuffle that shit out of your system... and if it's even beyond that point, then alcohol poisoning sets in (which I have never experienced, believe it or not).

ratbastid has spoken the truth (at least, my truth) here, and in a powerful way. Thank you for seeing the core of the issue, rat. I really appreciate your words, more than you know...

Well, I've been trying to keep this related to the OP... since I felt it was a real-life scenario that could be tested against the OP and related laws, etc. I hope it hasn't gone too far off topic... but I think in drawing out my individual story, it has shown that indeed rape is NOT an entirely objective concept. Sure, in some situations, there are no questions whatsoever. But in many other situations it's a damn slippery label, and proves even more difficult to stick on someone in a court of law, or even in one's mind.

Totally agree with this point.

Consent is a binary situation, and can be withdrawn. :thumbsup:

Sorry Hal, but I disagree on several points.

There is constant clarrification of what constitutes "right" and "wrong" in law. Otherwise our lawmakers would only need to make laws about new types of crime (so the only new laws in the past few years would be related to technological advances). After all, people have been murdering since Caine and Abel, so why do we need new laws about murder - ever?

Your statement "a switch any female can flip to get her partner in jail" raises two points that need attention; firstly - men can be raped too (ever seen Blue Velvet?) not to mention homosexual anal or oral rape; secondly, in the UK (and I believe in the US) rape is one of the hardest crimes to prove in court. It has the highest rate of cases not making it to court, and the lowest conviction rate for the cases that DO make it to court - something like 4% of victims alledging rape actually see a conviction.

As for it being an attack on premarital sex, other people have raised the issue of rape within marriage.

Hmm, I didn't notice the last part of your post, before. Did you add that in your edit?

So, I guess the repeated uses of the word "personal" didn't indicate to you that I didn't mean to use my "anecdotal evidence" to "discount the experience of a whole swath of people." Again, I swear that people aren't even trying to understand me...

Well, I suppose rape is "in the eye of the beholder." I mean, a lot of rapists don't see themselves as rapists. They deserved the sex they got and the women were obligated to give it to them...

I vehemently disagree that that's what this law is about. This law doesn't, at all, "codify" what you're suggesting. If the woman withdraws her consent in the middle of sex and the man desists then it is not rape. If he continues then it's rape. That's what this law is about and it has nothing to do with "feelings." Indeed, I can't tell what the hell you're talking about!

I guess I wasn't understanding exactly what abaya meant when she said she was blacked out. I was interpreting that as meaning unconscious or incapacitated, situations I found myself in a few times in my undergrad years. As she describes it now--she seemed to her partner to be conscious and reasonable--it's much more of a gray area and I would defer to her judgment here.

I wasn't aware that such a state as she describes was possible.

This doesn't in any way change my stance on the OP. Either party has the right to withdraw consent at any time. The man is generally going to do this by pulling out. The woman's "no" or other indication needs to be given the same respect, the same power by her partner.

To address your comment, Gilda (and yep, I agree with you on your point about the OP, entirely)... yeah, I was neither incapacitated or unconscious during the entire night, and was in fact quite lucid... to the point where I was telling aspects of my life story very clearly and conscientiously, as quoted back to me by the guy after I sobered up... VERY surreal to have that repeated back to me. Yeah, neither was I, until it happened to me. Just a little more info on this... from one of the websites I've looked at to try and understand what happens biologically during a blackout, a part about blackouts and the legal aspects of a rape accusation (eerily, almost exactly what happened to me except that I didn't charge rape): And another quote from a Duke university website on the same topic... And, a very long quote from the same site, related directly to our topic...

Agreed.

I at any time can revoke my consent for just about anything except for children.

Eating food, watching a movie, working for an employer, being married, all those I can stop at a moments notice.

There's no one to blame, but just you to forgive. :thumbsup:

forgiveness
is rare amongst us
but there's more.

abaya, as much as I respect you, I have a hard time understanding how this is a debate in your own mind, much less on the boards. if you drank yourself into a stupor and lost all your money at a casino, I would feel bad you were broke but the thought that you were a victim of theft wouldn't even cross my mind. because this is sex, a number of people seem to be seeing this differently...

the fact of the matter is, if I were that guy from your past, I would be devestated to be reading what I am here. to understand it even better, how would he have prevented the situation? you keep writing that you don't absolve him of taking advantage of you, yet your story as you've described it is some young man meeting a young lady in a bar, who appears conscious and perhaps not even drunk, expresses interest in him sexually, and asks to go to his place to do so. enjoys it, "comes to", exchanges accurate contact information (with a guy who just took advantage of you?--these thoughts seem to come up much later in sequence from this fact), and etc.

there are instances when people put themselves in situations they later regret and the things that happen to them there are deserved or at the very least rest on them. this is a FAR different statement than people who work in risky environments or live in them invite the ills that fall on them. if you dress "like a slut" that is not an invitation to be raped, neither is going to one's room for a nightcap. but abaya has laid out a pretty clear version of the story that indicates she asked, hey, let's go to your place and have sex.

if you drink yourself into a stupor and drive, you may not know that you are doing something wrong because you are so drunk. but the law recognizes you were sober before you drank all that alcohol. abaya explained that she knew she gets wild and does things she ordinarily wouldn't do when she drinks to that point--the responsibility, not 10%, not 50%, but 100% rests on her not to drink herself to that point. things might be different if she could come up with a reason to believe she was drugged or that her drinks were just way past the level of reasonable alcohol percentage...but she hasn't done that so far.

the reason you don't see a whole lot of cases of any kind going to trial is that 90% of them end in plea agreements. there aren't a lot of he said/she said cases going to trial, not because they're so weak to not get prosecuted, but because no sane person is going to face 20-50 years in prison when he can just plea out for a year or two--regardless of evidence. People are convicted everyday for a lot less than a woman's testimony to a crime.

And it's simply not true that you need 12 people unanimously agreeing before someone is convicted. That holds true in many states for capital crimes, but not even in all states. And just because jurors don't convict doesn't mean an acquital. and it never means not guilty. stand trial for rape, get acquitted, and see how everything goes back to normal for you...or not.


as for the OP, I would think that abaya's dilemma over how much responsibility she has over the timeline that led up to her loss of her virginity would fit right into the description of things that need to...well i forget the phrase but basically to own up to one's own responsibility. now had she come to and not been enjoying herself, and immediately said, hey, what the hell am I doing here, stop right now. I would have more tolerance for a rape or even victim label. The only thing she seems a victim of in this instance is poor judgement and good old fashioned regret. and while I respecdt your decision to retain your virginity until marriage or later or whatever, it's simply not fair to the person you engaged in what he and any reasonable person would have assumed was consent and then to later question whether he is or was a rapist. for those of you who seem to be alluding to knowledge on the phenomenon of rape, I'm surprised that no one has reported the very well studyed fact that it's about power and not sex.

there are many reasons for women to falsely report rape. and there are increasing ways for them to do so. there are almost no laws protecting men from rape, being raped, having it said about the interaction after the fact, even to the point that in many jurisdictions it's impossible for men to be raped according to the law on the books.

that said, this law appears to be symbolic. only in the sense that it empowers women to say no and puts wouldbe rapists on notice that they can't entice their dates into a quick "sure, whatever" and have it be all good. if anyone wants to falsely claim a rape, this law isn't going to embolden them to do so any further or make it any easier. it'd probably make the case more difficult and the investigating officer would probaby just guide the lady to be more specific in her account anyway.

Smooth, with all due respect, I think you either mis-read my posts or I did not write them clearly enough. So here's some more on the issue.

If you were that guy from my past, you would have known every detail I have written here (and more), 3 years ago already. Because we corresponded at length over e-mail, trying to figure out what happened that night. When he found out that I had lost my virginity that night, yes, he was devastated and we stopped corresponding. I never, at any point, accused him point-blank of taking advantage of me, neither in e-mail or in a legal sense. But in my own mind, I could not understand how I had done something that went so against every single conviction and moral I had at the time. It was as if I was utterly possessed by another entity, it was that foreign of an experience to me. Again, this is common when blackouts occur (as I said earlier), but I didn't know that at the time.

I don't know if you missed this part of the story... but I meant it when I said that a stranger picked me up off of Bourbon Street I was not in some bar, nor was I expressing sexual interest in the guy. Again, from the guy's account only (not my own memory, which is all black at that point) he literally picked me up from lying in the street, where I had perhaps collapsed or stumbled and fallen. I was, to some degree, passed out at that point. My purse and beads and camera were in a disarray around me. Apparently after he picked me up we walked around the street some more, he got both of us more drinks (?!?), and I stabilized somehow. Somehow, we got into a taxi, and the idea came up to go back to his hostel, and I seemed to have encouraged it (again, according to his account). There was still no suggestion of sex, as far as I could tell, but that happened once we got there, I suppose. I also apparently vomited several times after he picked me up (there was vomit on my clothes the next morning), which to me is a clear signal that a person is probably not in a good state to be having sex... I mean, do any men actually find it attractive to have sex with someone who's throwing up on or near them? But whatever.

The fact remains that if I had been at all sober, I would never in my life have given consent in any form to go back to that guy's place and have sex with a total stranger. Hell, even if I had been drunk, I never would have expected myself to do something like that... but I had never been blacked out before, either, and I underestimated what one was capable of doing while in that condition. 8 hours, completely blank in my memory... I never imagined I could get so drunk as to lose my entire self and any semblance of conviction or morals regarding something I held so precious to me as my virginity, at the time. It was utterly unbelievable, and that is how I felt when I came to the next morning. Clearly, I could not accuse the man of rape when I sobered up, since we both (at the moment) appeared to be enjoying ourselves as the blackout ended.

But I can't even describe to you what it felt like to sober up there in the shower... it was like emerging from a dream state, except that the person dreaming was not even me. Like I was coming out of a body that was not mine, and suddenly landing in my own rational self and realizing I had participated in something unthinkable with my body. I knew I had to get myself out of there, and the guy insisted on sharing a cab with me and giving me his contact info. All I wanted to do was to get away from him and the situation, but at some level I knew I needed something tangible in order to sort it all out when I was more composed, so I asked him to write it on paper. And that was it, I jumped out of the cab and was gone into my own hostel, collapsing to sleep because my body had basically been up all night.

Smooth, did you not read most of my posts? This was exactly my point in the entire thing. To own up to what was my responsibility in the situation. It's exactly what ratbastid commented on, both here and in my most recent journal. I'm not sure why you think I'm not taking responsibility, at all.

Okay, from what I can tell, it seems you've completely misunderstood most of my posts.

1) When I came to, I DID say "What the hell am I doing here?" and stopped everything. I looked at the guy, looked at myself, and had one of the worst shocks of my life. I put on my clothes, and got the hell out of there as quickly as possible.

2) I NEVER, ever asked anyone here to see me as a victim. That was very clear, unless you somehow missed those posts? As for rape, I will never really know what happened, since all I have is the guy's account of it... but I have chosen to believe him for the most part, because it concurs with what I remember happening as the blackout ended.

3) I think I've been more than fair to the person in question here, far beyond what was necessary. You need to go back and read my posts again, I'm afraid.

I wouldn't say I am confused about Abaya's experience itself, but I think what may be confusing is that you say you accept responsibility, and from what you were told (by this total stranger) you appeared functional "of sound mind", etc. And that you explicitly asked for sex.

However, you know that you were not at all of sound mind. I don't know if that could be legally proven, though.

Now honestly, I don't know of many guys who would say, " Oh yeah, I pretty much pressured you into it, and completely disregarded the indications that you weren't completely yourself..." etc. whether from the fact that they don't want to portray themselves that way, or maybe they didn't even see it that way.

See on one hand I can understand the "she appeared ok, and wanted it, and enjoyed it, then afterwards she regretted it and is crying--" protestations.

However. I have a very difficult time accepting that a vomitous virgin was begging for it and enjoying it, and appeared completely cool with everything the entire time.

Of course his perceptions were alcohol-blurred as well.

In a way, I guess it comes down to: Did he intend to force himself on her regardless? Would he have stopped if she had made the indication for him to?

We'll never know.

However, I'd say this is a persuasive argument that responsible people should take the time to get to know the person with whom they have sex, so they can actually know and be aware if that person is "acting like themselves". That person could be on medications, could be mentally impaired or unstable, could be drunk out of their mind, any number of things that makes the difference from an ill-advised one-night stand or a rape.

I'm very sorry you went through this, abaya.

Thanks, Sultana, for your input. I was hoping that more women would respond...
I agree. For all the research I've read on blackouts, I don't think any of it will stand up in court yet mostly because the individual always made a choice to begin drinking in the first place, and the responsibility begins there. Blackouts don't happen randomly... there is a cause, and it is alcohol. It is really like an out-of-body experience, though... where someone else comes in and uses you like a puppet, and then you become sober and your real self and memory comes back. That's honestly what it feels like.

Yeah, exactly... it's why I can't let the guy entirely off the hook, pretty much. The whole vomitous virgin thing that you mentioned... how could I have appeared "cool" with everything, the whole night? The guy said we had "great sex" and said that he had no idea that I was a virgin... he seemed to think I was extraordinarily experienced. I'd barely ever seen a man naked before, let alone done anything further than 2nd base. None of it makes any sense to me.

It comes down to those questions, but you're absolutely right in saying that we'll never know the answers. My impression of the guy was that no, he didn't intend to force himself, and yes, he would have stopped if I protested. But then again, I really have no idea and depend entirely on his account.

At times I've been tempted to do anything to get those memories back... be hypnotized, or whatever it took. But the fact remains that during blackout, the hippocampus (memory region of the brain) is completely offline. There ARE no memories to go back to, even if I had a way to regress and do so. The brain simply did not record events during that time.

I completely agree with you, but how many people here would stop having a one-night stand to "get to know" someone, in order to make sure that person was of sound mind and would not call "rape" on them the next morning, etc. Many people have one-night stands without a second thought, and then we get situations as with the OP (and I am sure it happens even when people have known each other for a while, as well)... someone calling rape when it was actually consensual, or appeared to be consensual. He-said/she-said. What else can be done...

abaya, I read every word in each of your posts carefully, and I thought for some time before I responded to make sure I didn't come across to you as insensative.

But the fact remains, that when you claim in a response to me that you never, ever asked for anyone to see you as a victim, yet in a response to sultana that you just can't bring yourself to let the guy off the hook, then you are giving mixed signals to the board--or at least to me.

Those sentences give off to me that you are conflicted in your own ways of thinking about this. And it's coming across here through your text to me. I'm not confused about what you wrote, but you readily admit that you are confused on how to assess it. Please don't transfer that confusion over to me.

I'm not going to go through your account point by point. In fact, I can't. You don't remember the details, and your posts here are going to be geared to put you in the best light and support the point you were trying to express to Halx. Instead, I'll just restate the general point that Halx was making and the one you seemed to initially be responding to. He claimed that a number of sexual assaults could be avoided with the right education. You refuted that with your account. How could education have done anything for you, you wondered? Granted, Halx used the phrase, sex education, but I would suggest that had he been thinking of personal defense or even how to be a mature adult education, he would have been just fine. Because the fact of the matter is that when that guy found you lying in the street (and that information was news to me, "picking up" someone doesn't mean literally pulling someone up to their feet in this context unless you clarify that), you had drank yourself to a point that was dangerous for your sanity and safety. You should have never placed yourself in that situation. And this is NOT the same thing as a rapist claiming that his victim shouldn't have been wearing that short skirt.

The only thing that makes this questionable in your mind is that you were unable to give or rescind consent. You removed that capability from yourself, knowning full well that you are prone to doing things you don't normally do when you are drunk and then drinking far beyond sensable levels anyway. In fact, millions of people drink their sensabilities away precisely to dull their personal and social inhibitions. When someone sobers up in a strangers home, and regrets the sex he or she had the night before, that in no way approximates rape, or what people are beginning to understand as date-rape; rape isn't about *gettin some*; rape isn't to be taken lightly or ascribed to every awkward situation; and it shouldn't be used to explain away deep regret over losing something as precious to someone as their virginity.

all that said, I'll repeat that I feel bad for you because my own wife waited to have sex with me until she was 22. I understand how important that was to her and continues to be today. I feel as bad for you losing that important aspect of your life in the same way that I feel bad for my friend who lost his life savings at a casino--and I know people who are addicted to gambling even sober--but I don't boycott the casino and I didn't think it was theft.

Who in their right mind would put money into a casino's pocket? At any table, in any machine? We all *know* that the odds are tailored to favor the casino, that's their existence. Yet people play them all day long despite the fact that no rational person could expect to win money. Unless he was just there to have fun, his actions were not in accordance with someone who was thinking absolutely rationally.

I'm able to look at this from far enough away that I can see the similarities but I'll give you another analogy that may help you see what I am making with that gambling point: if that night, instead of having sex with him, you had given him $10,000 dollars. Would he be a thief?

Smooth, I'm sincerely sorry if this is confusing... but honestly, to me, it is a case of two people being responsible for two stupid decisions. I am not a victim, but that doesn't mean the guy is 100% innocent, either. That is my point... that no one is 100% innocent. I feel that since you think I'm putting some of the responsibility on the guy, then you think that I'm someone asking to be recognized as a victim. And that is the kind of all or nothing thinking that I am not interested in, regarding this situation. No one was innocent, as I see it. Does that mean one or both people were 100% guilty? Not by my logic, though I'm afraid that is what you are reading into it.

... look man, have I ever argued with you on this point? I feel like you are trying to hammer it into my head that it was my responsibility to get drunk, when I admitted that fact right from the beginning. I'm beginning to think that your impression is that it's all my fault that I lost my virginity that night, when in fact there were two people involved, and two people making decisions. I don't understand why you want to absolve the guy from all wrongdoing, when it's obvious that bad decisions were made on both sides.

The analogy would be more complete if you said that I had $10,000 in my pocket, and the guy found it and asked me (while I was drunk), "Hey, do you mind if I borrow this for a while?" And in my drunken state, after vomiting, I said "Well... okay." (without having any memory of the situation). Obviously, it would have been my responsibility for losing the money because I got drunk in the first place. There is no dispute there. But that doesn't erase his responsibility for being an asshole for taking advantage of someone who was beyond any capacity to make decisions. I did not just say "HI!! Here's $10,000 I'm carrying around, would you like to have it?"

Just because someone has something valuable and does something careless while in possession of it, doesn't mean anyone else has the "right" to take advantage of that situation. I've met plenty of men who would never, ever have sex with a woman who was drunk... most of them are turned off by someone vomiting on them before the act, but there are others who would pursue it anyway. I call the latter assholes, but each to their own.

It seems abaya's case is a bit different from the specific type of case listed in the OP. It's about the effect of intoxication on capacity to give consent.

I find it dubious that a man can find a woman passed out in the street and vomiting and still reasonably think she's in a position to give informed consent, and it seems that he would be highly motivated to remember, interpret, and report things in such a way as to cast himself in better light.

Clearly it would be nearly impossible to get a conviction here, as the evidence is going to come up short of reasonable doubt.

Getting drunk to the point that you pass out on the street and lose your memory of what happens next is clearly foolish and demonstrates some poor choices were made. This is behavior that any woman should avoid because it impairs her judgment and places her in situations where she may do things she's going to regret later and also places her at much greater risk of being sexually assaulted. This is all true. It's also true that men should avoid getting intoxicated to this degree because it can lead to the same foolish decision making. Sexual assault, though a risk, is much, much smaller than it is for women.

It doesn't, however, mitigate the responsibility of the man who is with her to ensure that the woman he is having sex with has given her informed consent. Simply being drunk isn't enough, but there is a point at which a person is intoxicated to the point of incapacity to consent.

I'm not referring to two people who get drunk, have consensual sex, then regret it later. That's stupidity, but not rape. Nor am I referring to false rape allegations that occur as a result of later regrets. Those are offensive and undermine the credibility of women who have actually been raped.

In your situation, this may be true, and if you were referring specifically and only to that, I'll not argue with you.

However, in a more general sense, there are rape and sexual assault victims that are 100% innocent.

I appreciate everything you said, Gilda. I agree, and that is what I am trying to get at. In no way am I absolving myself from the fact of having made very poor decisions to get myself into that situation. I don't know how many times I've said it, but I'll keep saying it until it sinks in. I know what I did wrong, and I have not backed down from that.

The fact is, however, that while I was clearly beyond drunk (vomiting, stumbling, repeating myself over and over, calling this guy by the name of a friend of mine... when the guy had clearly told me that he was not the same person), the guy at no point was as drunk as I was. He was not vomiting, he was not blacked out (he remembered a hell of a lot more details than I did... since I remembered nothing), he got me into a taxi and remembered his own hostel address, he had the forethought to put on a condom several times (so he says), and he remembers that we had "great sex"... and we ended up in the shower, conveniently (especially in terms of evidence). Even if it was not some form of rape, I don't see how he's not at least an asshole for proceeding in the manner he did.

Now, you claim you were acting drunk, couldn't walk, vomitting all over the place, just lying around while he poked and prodded you and asked if he could have sex with you.

Yet, in an earlier response to Gilda, you wrote:
You even wrote that you remember yourself enjoying the sex, only to later realize that you were with a different man than you had thought.


If you are asking, I hold you 100% responsbile for the loss of your virginity that night, and yes, I posted that earlier. If you want to change your story so that the description is more in line with you being incapacitated and now looks very different to me from what you were initially describing, then fine, but that wasn't the way you were portraying the interaction when I first responded.


Regardless, the point remains that if young adults were taught to not drink beyond their limits, then these sorts of interactions wouldn't occur.

Certainly, Gilda. I don't think anyone here, least of all me, would argue with you. That is beyond any question.

I think the issue here, is whether it is still "rape" in a blackout situation. Are there different degrees of "rape?" I don't know. I just know that when I saw the rape scene in the movie "North Country," it affected me instantaneously. I wept on ktspktsp for a very long time, not knowing why the trigger had been so severe. It was not the same situation as mine, but it triggered the feeling I had when I sobered up that morning and realized what had happened... that I had lost something so extremely valuable to me, at the time. It went far beyond feeling "regret" the next day. It was a strong sense of violation, as well as shame for my being so stupid as to get into that situation.

I am not changing my story. The next time I post I might as well pull out those 3-year-old e-mails and post them all here for you to read. You can see what the guy said, and what I said, and see that it is all the same story, if that's what you want. I'm not sure what you want, really.

Did you read what I quoted about alcohol-induced blackouts? Yes, I was drunk, vomiting, could not walk (all quoted to me by the guy, not in my own memory). That was general drunkenness, crossing into the blackout zone. Once fully in the blackout zone, however (which I only know from reading about the biological reasons behind it), the "drunken" behavior ceases and one starts to appear very lucid and rational. One may continue throwing up (apparently, I did), since the body is trying to get rid of shit, but may also make decisions contrary to the person's otherwise usual convictions and beliefs. That is a trademark of a blackout.

The enjoyment that I noted was at the edge of my blackout, when I was sobering up and realized that I had been having sex (first shock) with someone who was not my friend (another shock) and with whom, in fact, was a complete stranger who seemed to think I was there voluntarily (third shock). All three of these shocks hit me in about 30 seconds, and within that time I was out of the shower, putting on my vomit-stained clothes, and actually ASKING the guy, "Did we have sex? DID WE HAVE SEX? Why is there vomit on my clothes? Where am I? WHO ARE YOU?" over and over again. He could not understand why I was asking him things like that... he thought I had gone insane, perhaps, because he thought I had been conscious of all the answers to those questions throughout the night and had, up until 30 seconds ago, appeared to have been enjoying myself. He saw this woman do an honest 180 in a very short period of time and could not make any more sense of it than I could.

I remembered having sex, but it was not ME... it was another person entirely, during the blackout. The ME who sobered up and had these shocks was not the same person who was "enjoying" the sex... how could it be? It was an act I had condemned in my personal beliefs since I was a young girl. It was akin to murdering someone, in my belief system. It was truly as if two different people had gone through the night in one body... the me who got consciously drunk, and the me who had sex with a stranger. The me who woke up knew that I had been drunk, but did not know how I had gotten into that situation otherwise.

For what it's worth, I agree with you. Hell, I didn't take a drink until my 21st birthday, and had only been fully drunk a few times in my 20's (always in a safe place with friends) before this event happened... but never blacked out for 8 hours straight. If you do read the scientific reports on alcohol-induced blackouts, you can see that they are not always induced by large amounts of alcohol. Sometimes it can be a moderate amount, but it interacts badly with a person's particular chemistry. Yes, that should be taught to young people, obviously. Who would argue with that?

My problem with this isn't that a woman shouldn't have the right to change her mind, she should, but that I see no fair way to use this law. It's primary use it seems to me would be abusive because it comes down to "he said she said". Unless you tape yourself everytime you have sex...;

actually, I'm aware of blackouts and the how/why of them. I didn't post that they can be caused by other things than alcohol, including extreme feelings of guilt, because that wouldn't have done much more than appear like I was doubting your sincerity. One woman in our program is the premier researcher on memory reconstruction...you could look her up. I will PM her name to you, and you will find her work informative and helpful, I'm sure. It interesects precisely with how the brain & memory works with the law.


look abaya, all I'm pointing out to you is if you appeared to be lucid and sober after a period of time then how is the guy supposed to know that you weren't short of running a barrage of tests on you?

I really can't account for how you're coming at me, because in my mind I've been respectful of your feelings and what you view as traumatic. That's fine, but it's odd that I am answering in a way very similar to how your real life friends answer, and yet on here you noticed that a few people actually responded in a way that both surprised you and has given you some comfort. I didn't mean to take away from that comfort, but remember that the general consensus you're getting on this board was initially surprising to you.

I'm going to bow out of this conversation because it doesn't seem like I'm getting a fair shake. I'm not upset with you, nor have I lost any respect for you. But I never asked for transcripts of your conversations. I'm merely answering your question of how I would assess the situation based off what you wrote. It seems that as your posts continue, more facts come out. And those facts significantly alter the context and framing of the interaction. I hope that as time goes by, you'll revisit this thread and understand how I came to the conclusions I posted.

PM sent.

Thanks for the PM, and for bowing out. I still feel I need to answer things that you said, however. I never disagreed with this point. My question is, why did you feel the need to point this out to me over and over again?

No, sorry smooth, I'm afraid you're not answering at all like my real-life friends answered, because none of them chalked up my "guilt" to being 100%. Everyone agreed that both parties were responsible, though the guy was an asshole for taking advantage of the situation.

The reason I was surprised at some people's answers here was because they were putting the guilt 100% on the guy, which I (same as you) thought was unfair of them. I never budged on that stance, though it seems you perceived that I did budge on it. My only position all along has been that in a situation such as mine, two people were at fault; I was stupid, and he was an asshole. And when that happens (not in a case of pure innocence vs. guilt), both people have to take responsibility for their decisions... otherwise you get some useless, expensive, messy court situation that only makes things worse. I just don't understand why you disagreed with me, or how I "hid" any facts from the beginning.

Just out of wild curiosity, I have two questions...

First, why do you say that abaya's "coming at you?" She certainly disagrees with you and has listed her reasons for doing so but is this really what you meant by "coming at you?" I think most people would agree that that term implies a level of beligerence that, as far as I can tell, isn't present in her posts...

Secondly, what makes you think that the surprising posts have given her any comfort? It's a long thread, even more popular than the atheist thread, so perhaps I missed it but I saw her take no comfort in these surprises...

if you're going to ask me a direct question, then I'll answer I suppose...

"coming at me" in that every response starts with "you didn't read my posts, you don't understand what I'm saying, you don't get it"

she's not doing that to anyone else, and that implies to me that she's feeling support from those responses and not mine...which should answer your second question.


and abaya, I can only guess that your friends probably think that you are responsible, but why would they say it like I did? of course they think he's an asshole. they are your friends and support, I'm just an anonymous poster.

the reason I kept bringing up that point is that you still haven't answered my question...what was he supposed to do differently? what makes him an asshole?
EDIT: to clarify, I didn't see any "harm" done to you, from your description other than having lost your virginity. But he didn't know that until afterward. You are placing more value on the sex that was conducted purely by the fact that it was your first time. That decision is yours to make, he didn't violate your right to keep your virginity. although it certainly comes across like he did. at worst, he was having sex with a drunk girl, and that happens all the time.

I don't read journals. I keep the personas of who I interact with entirely within the context of each thread I come across. I was responding to you in relation to what Halx was bringing up.

KM, thanks for your comment, but I did want to say that smooth said I was "both" surprised and comforted (separately, I assume) by some posts on this thread. He is probably also referring to what I posted in my journal, about how parts of the thread had been very helpful in me dealing with what happened that night. To be sure, the "surprising" parts were not terribly comforting, but the assurance (mostly from ratbastid) that I was responding with the correct amount of responsibility was of great comfort to me, since it confirmed something I have tried to believe (but have not always been convinced of) for a long time.

EDIT (after smooth's post): Thanks for the clarification on the journals; I spoke of my "comfort" there, so that was why I thought it might have come from there.

Well, I would be interested to hear what other posters have to say on this, for the sake of discussion. But, since you're asking me, I'll answer that in my opinion, I think he ought to have recognized at least somewhat how very drunk I was (via the initial stages... vomiting/stumbling), and if he was so kind as to pick me up off the street... to also have been so kind as to figure out where I was staying (or even taken me to the police station, if nowhere else) and put me in a taxi going back there. To me, that is what a considerate person would do, even if he was also intoxicated (especially if he was conscious enough to find another bar for us to "have more drinks," after I was found at floor level). That is what makes him an asshole, I suppose. Or maybe just human, who knows.

so this doesn't get lost, your loss of your virginity in that way was 100% on you.
that is different from the fact that two adults made poor decisions that resulted in sex they both or at least one wishes didn't occur.

before meeting you, he had no idea you were a virgin and presumably didn't know until after the fact. it doesn't matter though, you being a virgin doesn't make the act any more or less of a violation...other than to your own personal views of how sacred your first time was going to be.

and that's what I'm responding to mostly, this undercurrent that isn't always explicitly stated that had this been with someone else or had it not been your first time, that it would be less of a conundrum for you.

it's an emotional trigger for many I'm sure, but to be honest, it's no different than any weekend night where women and men hook up in bars and go with each other drunk out of their minds. sometimes puking, sometimes not, but never wholly in their right minds. if that's the new threshold to consider a man a rapist, and more than three people in this thread have voiced that opinion, then so be it but that's a dangerous viewpoint for a variety of reasons.

and that's all that I meant by me agreeing with your friends, that the dude is not a rapist.

Oh, right. Somehow, this had slipped my mind. I accuse people of not reading posts all the time (mostly because it's really obviously that they hadn't) and I must admit that it's somewhat beligerent...

This is mostly a personal point but I prefer to think that friends don't support you by telling you what you want to hear. Friends support you by telling you the truth. Who needs comfort from a pack of lies?

Not picking her up off the street in the hopes of gettng laid?

Admittedly, I didn't realize that he had literally done this, either, but apparently he had...

While she certainly place a lot of value on the virginity, it wasn't her only value. Why did she get tested for STDs afterwards? Because she had unprotected sex with a perfect stranger who, literally, picked her off the street. How many other girls might he have picked up off the street? Safe sex is as much his responsibility as hers...

I do the same thing.

By the way, you haven't really put anything in relation to the original post. The original post was about withdrawing sex during the act. This whole abaya sub-thread was just an interesting diversion to a vaguely related but very interesting topic...

I was not one of those people calling him a rapist. I agreed with my friends IRL. And yet your posts were aimed directly at me in terms of getting me to realize that he was not a rapist. Very frustrating.

And we'll just have to disagree here. I was not 100% responsible for losing my virginity in that manner. I was 100% responsible for getting drunk, that's clear. But by no means was it my conscious, rational choice to have sex, for the first time or the 100th, with a friend or a stranger, in that manner. That was not my choice. Does that make him a rapist? Not to me. Does that make me a victim? Again, not to me. Does that mean I should just chalk it up as another "weekend on the town?" No, and that is something I will not do, and would not have done even if I wasn't a virgin at the time.

Yes, losing my virginity loaded that event down with very heavy emotional implications, but I know myself well enough that if the same event had happened long after I was sexually active, I know it would have disturbed me very deeply. You don't know me well enough to contradict that fact, I'm afraid.

Just wanted to note that I am aware of this, and made note of it in my journal but not here. I apologize for taking this thread off-track... at first my experience seemed very relevant, but I realized at one point that perhaps a new thread was in order. But by that time the two topics were rather tangled and it seemed alright to just go on ahead as it was. I do hope that my semi-related situation has cast light on just how tricky it is to make an accusation of rape when it is not a clear innocence vs. guilty party situation, which is often the case (especially with HS and college-age women)... and how difficult it really is to make that call, both personally and legally.

Abaya, I'll answer your question since you posed it for all the guys on the board.

If I had run across you passed out on Bourbon Street with your belongings scattered everywhere, I would have stopped to help, gotten you in a cab and gone on with my evening. I can say that because I've done exactly that both on Bourbon Street and off it. I wouldn't 1) call the cops (they'd take you to jail for public intox, even in NO) or 2) take you home myself. The first is pretty self-explanatory but the second is for exactly what happened to you.

In my opinion, after having read and reread all of your posts, the guy plain old took advantage of you. I don't know what smooth has read that I haven't but I can't see where anyone could possibly think that you consented, especially if he literally picked you up in the street. I'm sorry, but an unconcious single woman that comes on to you after waking up is not a potential bedfellow. Maybe after she sobers up, but there is no way that any prudent person hops in bed with her after the vomiting, smell and what should be obvious intoxication.

At best, this guy is guilty of being a flaming asshole that should be ostrasized from polite company. At worst, well, we've all been over that again and again. Regardless, if one of my friends did something like this, we wouldn't be friends for long. Its one thing if you spend hours in a bar both getting drunk together, but something entirely different to pick someone out of the gutter, buy her another drink (WTF?!) and then trot her off to your place.

If you were telling him you wanted to have sex, then you were conscious.

You might not have been rational, but that's alcohol for you.

Jazz, thanks for your post. Good to have some fresh voices in here.

Carno, I have no memory of telling him I wanted to have sex. I have no memory of meeting him, throwing up on/near him, having more drinks with him, getting in a cab with him, deciding to go to his place, deciding to have sex, deciding to get in the shower, deciding to use a condom, or any of the rest that he remembered and told me that I/we had done.

All I remember, which I have said over and over again, is getting drunk with my acquaintances on Bourbon Street... and then somehow enjoying what was happening in the shower about 8 hours later... and then coming-to and realizing very quickly that this was not any kind of situation I ever wanted to be in, and getting myself out of there. That is the extent of my memories of the evening.

Just because you don't remember what happened the night before doesn't mean you weren't conscious. It just means you drank so much that you don't remember it.

Yes.

What you describe here is textbook PTSD. It would probably be helpful to talk to a professional about this.

What I've read differently is the same thing that even changed Gilda's position. First Gilda said it was clear-cut rape, then abaya's responses led her to leave it up to abaya.

that's just one example, I'm not the only person who read her account differently than she's now proposing...even knifemissle commented that the "literally" picking someone off the street was news to him...

how one can evaluate my replies *after* she adds more facts that appear like she wasn't consenting, is beyond me...well, no it's not beyond me. it appears that people who generally enjoy disagreeing with me in other venues are doing so here, as well!

This has been my impression from the beginning.
Furthermore, I suspect your blackout is caused more by guilt and stress than the alcohol consumed. but that's just based on the fact that you didn't come to until a full 8 hours later in the guy's shower while enjoying sex you shouldn't have been enjoying.