Thank you. That was making me bonkers and I almost started flagging posts. Not every thread about something in the pit needs to become a referendum on the pit.
That thread has been closed for a short time and two modnotes just added.
Any further derailments will probably result in warnings. They couldn’t take a polite request.
What? It’s blindingly obvious to the folks that are actually following along.
The reason I said that was to forestall any argument that they aren’t doing it intentionally. The effects are the same either way.
Based on the responses, I suspect one poster was doing it intentionally and the other might not have been.
Thanks for this fascinating post. I had no idea that there was that kind of data out there. Do you remember the size of the study? Imagine if this was a widespread practice.
So sorry to hear your story. It’s amazing that in this day and age, you would have to defend yourself like this.
Here’s a link to the article. I’ll be reading it again myself. Unfortunately it’s probably paywalled, but if you get free views it’s worth one. If you can’t get to it, it looks like they’ve tested 45,000 kits to date.
BTW, The Joyful Heart Foundation was started by Mariska Hargitay, who plays Detective Olivia Benson on Law and Order SVU.
Go to hell.
Great article. Thank you.
Thank you. I’ll give it a read.
I wouldn’t be surprised if he were to do that soul searching as the defendant.
@nelliebly , @not_what_you_d_expect , I have to commend you for your strength and I respect you all the more for it. No one should have to experience and endure what you did (and anyone I’ve missed in naming these two specifically), and I admire your perseverance in not letting those experiences define you.
You’re telling lies, so evidently you’re not past it.
People are usually afraid of rabbit holes, they are dark and mysterious places for the uninitiated. But let’s put our fears aside and confidently go down this rabbit hole together.
A couple in a sexual relationship who are also somewhat into the drinking/drug culture and it is not uncommon for one of them to stay sober to make sure the other does not fall into any bad situation if there is any question. Sexually they try to fill the others fantasies and are very comfortable with each other. Not only is it common for them to engage in sex every night, but it is expressed as a desire to by both of them, frequently will do so while impaired and even when one is and the other is not. This goes both ways, the duty of looking out for each other is shared, and sex is still desired by both and a bit of a fantasy of both to have sex while incoherent with their partner. It happens frequently and never one is there an expression of anything but satisfaction with their sex life.
According to your statement one would have to conclude you would consider this multiple counts of rape against both, but I see a very lucky and blessed couple with perhaps a drug problem, no sexual crime was committed here.
So I ask you, is it rape, or is your hard line really fuzzy?
Gotta say, coming from you this is a bit creepy.
Nevermind
No. There is not a single lie in my post. If you think I’m mistaken, you can refute my statements—with evidence.
However, I do not believe you can. I directly quoted the guy in ATMB. You can easily scroll up and see that he said those words. He told a victim of rape to take responsibility because they had a single drink of alcohol.
My tolerance for this sort of thing is at its minimum. I recently found out that my (now former) church told my friend who was sexually molested at said church that she needed to consider things from their perspective. They go out of their way to act like they’re doing to do something about it, but then don’t. I know that her sister also has been molested there, and tells everyone not to go to that church.
I will admit that I decided to vent here in the Pit. Maybe you can argue that I was wrong to let out all my anger without giving you a chance to say you were mistaken first.
But you were mistaken. You now have been informed. If you continue to argue that he didn’t say what he very clearly said, then I can only go back to my original interpretation.
Since I previously said:
I really don’t think your hypothetical is relevant to this conversation, though. And I think the line is pretty bright, even if there are a couple of clearly defined exceptions to the simplest statement of it.
I mean, we can go into consent for other stuff… like, you can consent in advance to letting a surgeon knock you out and break a bunch of your bones. That’s also not relevant to this discussion, but is also a technical violation of the simple, clean description of the laws of consent. I’m not going to engage any further in this “rabbit hole” because it’s creepy. And again, not relevant to rape laws and how we understand rape.
A line is not “fuzzy” because it has a few caveats. @puzzlegirl already mentioned the exact caveat you are mentioning here, although I don’t like her usage of the term “implied consent.” It’s not implied. The only way you can ever have sex with a fully inebriated person without raping them is if they explicitly consented while they were sober to future sex when they were inebriated.
We know from Cosby’s own testimony that he did not do this. He said he didn’t know if they had consented. His description of how he went about it did not involve asking if it would be okay to have sex with them while under the influence. He just offered nervous women something to “take the edge off.” Then, when they were unable to consent, he has sex with them.
It is not in society’s best interest for the lines to be fuzzy. It is not in society’s best interest to say that we can only be sure it’s rape if there is an explicit “no.” The default has to be that consent has not been given. And, in cases like this, where most people would not consent and you cannot check in the moment to see if they still consent, then it has to be explicit, advanced consent.
Anything less allows for inebriated or passed out people to be sexually taken advantage of.
+1
I am old, and my language may be imprecise. But I completely agree with the content of BigT’s post.
