From this thread,
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?p=13116318#post13116318
Snowboarder Bo interprets that statement as meaning, Norin is NOT clear.
My interpretation is - she was VERY clear and most likely said something akin to F*ck off.
Personally I think Bo’s interpretation is stretching things majorly.
I’m with you, but I think Snowboarder was making the point that it could be open to interpretation. She didn’t say it so politely and therefore it was clearer than had she if she had simply said “get off”. It’s a manner of speech that is quite familiar to me.
His exact words:
This to me sounds like he is saying - she either
a.) Was to drunk to have remembered clearly
b.) did not clearly articulate herself because she was drunk and is not sure if she is clear
I am saying that her words would commonly be interpreted to mean - she was very clear and his interpretation is most likely wrong - due to the fact her phrasing is common place and most other people would understand it to mean that she was saying a few swear words & was very clear.
I’m with you, but I think Snowboarder was making the point that lawyers will rip that blog apart.
If you were a prosecutor and your victim had made that blog post, would you be happy? Or would you facepalm?
If you were a defense attorney, how much time would you spend pointing out those weasel words (“You think!?!?! You think!?!?!”) to a jury?
I don’t know if Snowboarder Bo actually thinks that deep down her story is suspect, but the tone of that thread had a lot to do with whether or not the victim’s blog helped her credibility. In terms of the state getting a conviction, it most definitely did not.
Now, right or wrong, words have meaning and it’s a lawyer’s job to take a critical eye to a statement like that. That’s the legal system that we all put our trust in. And yet, when it comes to convicting this guy in the court of public opinion, we find that same critical eye to be ridiculous. That seems a bit strange to me.
I read it the same way you did, and I think it’s a definite stretch to read it as if she didn’t remember what she’d said. “I may have been less eloquent, but I don’t think I was less clear” is obviously just a more polite way of saying “I told him to fuck off”.
That thread annoyed me in much the same way the one we had a while ago where people were sharing their own experiences of sexual abuse - the automatic doubting of her story, the implications (and sometimes outright statements) that because she’d been drinking, she bought it on herself - I stopped reading at the point at which some guy was saying that the poor man was actually less to blame if she’d got off with someone else earlier in the evening. I can’t believe some people, I really can’t.
Ive always heard that phrase as a euphemism for saying piss off or the like.
Is the other person not familiar with it maybe?
Edit: theres still a lot of victim blaming around, but online, people like to argue out of ‘principle’. I take some of the positions claimed with a pinch of salt.
Otara
Yeah, I’m with steronz. SB’s point was not that Norin’s statement was unclear in terms of what she thought she was saying, but that it is open to being picked apart under interpretation. Obviously she was trying to politely say that she forcefully (and clearly) told the guy off, but the way she publicly presented it still allows for the interpretation that she doesn’t know what she said.
Only by someone bent on disbelieving her.
If the argument is that a lawyer or judge could interpret some ambiguity in her statement of non-consent just from reading that snippet, then that’s a silly argument, honestly. The evidence would not rest on how clear she* thought* she was. The question of importance is what she actually said to the guy.
If she told him “Stop”, “No”, “Fuck off and die!”, “WTF are you doing, dude?”, or or any variations thereof, pushed him away, and he persisted, that is all that matters.
I shared the same interpretation as the OP. She cursed the dude out.
I know this is kind of a meta-thread, but I have to point out that you’re wrong here. If she was impaired and didn’t say yes, that is all that matters.
Well this is a totally useful poll with options that are an accurate and full reflection of what people might think.
In fact, I think the RNC should contact Lexi to head up their push polling team - I am sure there is a very bright future to be had there.
It’s a figure of speech that means exactly one thing. The only other interpretation on the table is the one that Snowboarder Bo has.
If you don’t like the options, you can either not vote, or, you could make user of the thread that is always attached to these polls to give your more specific answer.
Or you can pop into the thread just to disparage it. What’s that called again?
Well I didn’t vote.
And I did make use of the thread to make my opinion clear.
The options given are not an accurate reflection of what is being discussed in the thread. There is a whole excluded middle.
So what was the point of your post again? Other than to take a shot at me?
It’s an attempt to cleverly say “I said ‘fuck off’”.
As a rule, one can expect to be quite safe in disagreeing with Bo, and this is no exception.
(That said, it’s true that the poll is not constructed impartially.)
<hijack>
If she never actually vocalises the word “yes”, it’s assault?
I imagine the vast majority of drunken hookups count as rape then, at least until halfway through the sex. .
What about “mmm”? Does that count as a yes, after a kiss? What about if she puts his hand on her leg? Leads him into a bedroom? These are all assault by the guy too, right?
There are far too many ways of implying consent for a blanket rule like the one you posted to be anything more than a barrier to sensible discourse.
</hijack>
Count me on the list of didn’t vote, crap survey.
It is most likely, however, that she said “fuck off”, or something similar. That has very little to do with what Snowboarder Bo was saying in the other thread.
“I don’t think that x is true” ≠ “I am certain that x is not true” regardless of whether she is or not. She definitely could have phrased it better.
Can you point out where Snowboarder Bo is making that point? I have re-read all his posts, although other pointed out lawyers may rip things apart, Bo’s point is she is inebriated.
He said:
Now if he was making a point, a lawyer may pick things apart it - this sure doesn’t sound like it. This sounds like he is saying a lawyer may have problems with what she said - and then goes off on a tangent about her being drunk… In a future thread he continues on about drunkeness and continues with his strange interpretation of her words.
Even if a lawyer played that game - i am sure that it would be rather easy to explain the use of language in that case and for her to tell the court exactly what she said - if a judge & prosecutor would even permit such a strange line of reasoning.
My point of this poll is not to debate the prior thread - but to point out that her quote used a common phrase, and most people would interpret this phrase in a certain way, and would guess that she meant that she said something rude.
Bo’s interpretation is a very strange interpretation - and his logical leaps that she must have been drunk are really really odd - and in order to get such an interpretation is would guess that one would have to be either fairly new to the English language or raised by literalists.
Bo’s interpretation is that she was unclear about what she said because she was drunk, and he reiterated his conjecture that she was drunk over & over.
Now I could have added an extra option other than the “majority” interpretation, for those who haven’t made conjectures that she was drunk, but still were raised by literalists and have had no exposure to such a common figure of speech, but I used only Bo’s interpretation and the normal interpretation in the poll because I didn’t think of adding a secondary literalist interpretation until now.
It appears that you may be right; I may have been conflating several arguments made in that thread in with Bo’s. In normal conversation, I don’t think her statement would be subject to any scrutiny or confusion, and if that’s the point that Snowboarder Bo is making, then I don’t have his back.
Saying “Get Off” would certainly be open to interpretation. I’m sure his intention was to “Get Off!”
An absence of no does not mean yes. That’s what I said. It’s pretty generally a safe bet that yes means yes, though.