I Pit Split_p_j


Now to say what I couldn’t say in ATMB:

You are defending someone who attacked a rape victim, telling them it was their fault. That is utterly disgusting. There are two explanations for what they’ve said: (1) they’re trolling (2) they’ve raped someone before.

You have claimed before to be a Christian. Why in the world do you think defending a possible rapist is worth risking an eternity in hell? Light has no fellowship with darkness. And Jesus never, ever said that sin was okay: he died so that people would be forgiven, but only if they repent first.

I had thought we were past this nonsense.

This wouldn’t have happened if you hadn’t agreed to post here. Are you saying you don’t have agency over where and what you post?

< analogy continues >

We get it. We provided a forum that you willingly used to post your views. We’re talking about a fully grown man here, capable of making his own decisions. The whole point was for you to get attention.

You were trying to defend an indefensible position and it didn’t work out.

And now you’re crying about it.

@split_p_j: be happy people are thinking you’re a troll. The alternative is that you’re speaking from experience.

There is a balance on this issue. For one it seemed like in the thread in question the woman appeared to have been drugged, or at the very least deceived into taking too much to drink. (though it does sound like she has been drugged as being aware of what was happening but unable to move/object). This is a violation of trust and wrong anyway you slice it.

But if a woman went to the place knowing drugs were used, and planning to use them, knowing that sex was a possibility as everyone was high and inhibition were low, and it was morning after regret that would be different. But that was not what was expressed here.

However there is some interesting side take (insight) on the guy who committed the rape. It appears evident he didn’t realize that there was anything wrong with his actions that night as he sought out a second date with her. What he did morally may or may not have hit him when she denied him a second date after he reflected on how this very successful first date (home run), was not followed up by a second one.

But ‘if’ it hit him how much and how deeply he hurt the poster, if he made that realization, he has to deal with the ramifications, and that can be very hard to deal with. One such way is convincing yourself that ‘hey she was asking for it’, what did she expect and blaming the other for the offense he committed. It’s his way of dealing with it.

People who feel that way (she was asking for it), may be very much like the rapist above. Either they don’t have the knowledge of just how damaging it is to rape another (yet), or they have done such an act and need to justify it to themselves and perpetuate the lie to the unknowing that ‘she was asking for it’ is a viable defense. So if this case the pitted poster (which I am not saying it is) he deserved pity (as long as he did not cross the line), he would be so obviously morally wrong that it is a cry for help.

Consent to go somewhere that sex is a possibility is not consent to have sex. What the ruck is so hard about this?

If the guy drugged her, he would be aware of his wrongdoing. If he did it, he did it in secret, away from her sight. He didn’t offer her a hit of a knockout drug, “Hey baby, try this, you’ll kiss the sky,” so that she would have a chance to refuse.

I agree that some clueless, aggressive guys may not understand that no means no. In one of the books I’ve read on this subject, one rape victim said that her date rapist asked her afterwards, “Do you always fight so hard when you have sex?”

That’s not an excuse, of course. But yes, some rapists may plausibly not consider themselves rapists.

You conveniently left out a very important part of my post and thus changed the meaning out of context.

No I didn’t, because no it didn’t.

You want to believe this shit that you can withdraw consent the next day for the act the night before you are in the same denial bucket at the rapist.

Okay, dumbass, which part of the above adds context that doesn’t make it seem as if you think going to a place where “sex was a possibility,” under the influence of drugs or not, is somehow equivalent to consent to sex?

It’s not “morning after regret” if someone didn’t consent to sex. It’s rape. Dumbass.

I have had a teenage boy describe an encounter that was absolutely forcible rape of a classmate, but he insisted it was not rape because he knew the girl.

He was 16 so maybe that is some mitigation. However the Catholic school threatened to, and eventually did, expel the girl if she “ruined his life over a mistake”.

Some people have an internal definition of “rape” that can be very restrictive:

  • stranger
  • forcible, maybe even needs a weapon
  • “chaste” victim
  • etc.

If she initiated sex would certainly fit into my scenario.

You are so blinded in someone’s view of how things should be you can’t see a blurry line placed right infront of you. Second it is frowned upon on the SD to take post excerpts out of context, though to your only credit you did add the ‘…’

You are so desperate to generate a “get out of jail free card” for acquaintance rape you aren’t even reading what other people are saying.

@kanicbird: The only thing that is consent to having sex is an enthusiastic ‘YES’ when asked if you’d like to engage in such an activity.

  • If you have not been asked to have sex, you have not given consent to have sex.
  • If you are unable to say ‘yes’ or ‘no’ when asked, you have not given consent to have sex. And yes, that includes if you are under the influence of a mind-altering substance.
  • Going someplace where you may or may not reasonably expect others to be engaging in sexual acts is not consent to having sex yourself.
  • Going someplace where drugs (legal or otherwise) may or may not be reasonably expected to be in use is not consent to having sex yourself.
  • Using drugs in the company of others is not consent to having sex yourself.

Are we clear?


I guess these are the same “leaders” who didn’t want to ruin the lives of priests just because they had made a mistake and molested some kids.

Here’s the thing. It may sound like a tautology, but the only reason a woman gets raped is because she’s unlucky or unfortunate enough to cross paths with a rapist.

I believe that most men are not rapists and wouldn’t take advantage of a comatose woman. They aren’t psychologically capable of it. Even if they fantasize about it. I might fantasize about punching out Ted Cruz, but I wouldn’t be capable of actually doing it, my social conditioning is too strong.

A charitable group, the Joyful Heart Foundation, raised money to test many of the untested rape kits held by police departments all over the country. Many of these weren’t tested because of police department negligence, but many weren’t tested because it seemed unnecessary. The victim knew her rapist and the rapist didn’t deny having intercourse with her, he just claimed she consented.

The findings were surprising. Many “date rapists” were proven to be multiple offenders, and many of them were revealed to be the perpetrators of violent stranger rapes. Date rape doesn’t happen because a woman lets her guard down and tempts a “normal” guy into doing something, it happens because the rapist finds it easier to lure and drug her rather than knocking her down and restraining her in a dark alley.

Think about the #MeToo revelations for a minute. If there were a bunch of gold-digging women looking to cash in on false allegations, you’d expect to see a small number of allegations against every celebrity with a reputation as a womanizer. Instead, what you have are large numbers of allegations against a relatively small number of men.

Those men are rapists and I believe the same pattern holds true for society in general. You get raped when you cross paths with a rapist, the circumstance don’t matter much at all.

ETA: I’m not digging up cites for a Pit Post, but the article on the rape kit testing appeared in the Atlantic a few years ago.

That’s not true though. I know this is being pedantic but if a person (woman or man) begins the physical act, they are clearly “consenting” to it. The person initiating sex can’t claim rape; otherwise a rapist could claim that they were raped too. “She never asked me if I wanted to have sex with her when I forced myself on her, so I’m a victim too!”

However, this…

Absolutely doesn’t fit with…

Going to a place with drugs and/or alcohol, knowing that sex was a possibility, is not “initiating” sex. No more than walking alone down a dark alley in a city is “initiating” a mugging. The person who pulls out a weapon and demands your valuables is the one initiating a mugging.

Let’s say a girl likes a guy. Really, really likes him. She has gotten to know him well, they hit it off, but have never been romantic. She’s a bit shy and inexperienced and wants to take things to the next level but is nervous about it. So she goes to a party that she knows he’ll be at, and thinks, hey, I’ll drink a little, loosen up, it’s a casual atmosphere, maybe something will happen.

She goes there, drinks too much, and some guy she has no interest in and maybe can’t stand at all takes advantage of her and rapes her. Oh, but she chose that, because she knew that sort of thing could happen at the party. Right?

Consent first.

Anything else second.

( If there is the slightest ambiguity about full consent, grab your coat and leave; the date’s over. )

I never said it was, but the scenario does even state if she went there because she know that sex was a possibility (that she went there to have sex while under drugs that lower inhibitions).

Your ‘she’s always the victim’ is nothing but infantilizing women which is very insulting and misogynistic. My point is clearly she can not (morally) withdraw consent after the fact.

No one has suggested this.