Rape issue

Couple things.

First, it is irrelevant whether she took the drugs with consent.

Second, so long as she was sufficiently intoxicated to be unable to consent, the rape was forced. The facts given by the OP are not sufficient for anyone here to be able to determine this---though given alcohol + a significant amount of xanax, the odds are that she was not able to consent---but the question by the OP did not relate to whether the act was in fact rape. It related to whether the victim had any options at this point. She does. So do the police when it comes to the question of gathering evidence.
 
^ But where do you draw the line of "sufficiently intoxicated"? And if--for argument's sake--there is some nebulous line where intoxication was "sufficient," if she could theoretically be charged with vehicular homicide by getting behind the wheel of a car and killing someone, why can't she be deemed to have "bad judgment" by consensually fucking some guy she just met?

There seems to be a double standard here: the 17-year-old is charged with rape, and the "victim" is absolved of all responsibility for the consequences of getting shitfaced. If they were just partying, then decided to go (consensually) into the bedroom and fuck, why does it turn into "rape" the next morning (or three days or weeks or months later)?
 
As a man, you are expected not to unleash your boner with intoxicated people around. Otherwise there is legal liability.
 
it should also be mentioned that we're all assuming the sex was initiated by the kid who gave her the xanax. with the facts we're given, how are we to know that the girl herself isn't the one who initiated the sexual acts?

my point is... as has been mentioned before... they're BOTH children, not just her. they BOTH took drugs. willingly mind you (as far as it seems). so assuming the girl was raped is kind of jumping to conclusions. don't get me wrong, i'm not saying she shouldn't seek out answers or find out what happened, but everyone's always so quick to say the guy is the rapist the girl is the victim. how do we know there's even a victim here? it IS possible that both of them just plain used terrible judgment. if the facts that we've been given here are all the facts that are out there in this girls real world... then i'm just saying... it's gonna be a tough case to prove. legally... i think it's gonna cost a lot of money and provide no substantial results. IMHO.

banquo... nobody here is trying to scold the girl, this is a place for legal discussion, not compassion and support. we're not trying to console the girl, we're trying to provide advice and clarify the situation. i don't see anything wrong with anything anyone has said.
 
ryanlaughlin said:
it should also be mentioned that we're all assuming the sex was initiated by the kid who gave her the xanax. with the facts we're given, how are we to know that the girl herself isn't the one who initiated the sexual acts?
Click to expand...

Becuase the original poster said she BLACKED OUT and was RAPED.

When anyone else posts in this forum asking for advice do you start questioning their version of the events that took place? Of course, not.

we're not trying to console the girl, we're trying to provide advice and clarify the situation
Click to expand...

We are not trying to clarify the situation. This is not CSI. We are not the police. Issues of fact are for a jury to decide. We are here to give advice in the best interest of the party asking for it -- not to judge them, add new facts to their situation, or allege that they are lying. Get a clue and read the forum guidelines where you will see these items very clearly spelled out.
 
Last edited:
Banquo said:
Becuase the original poster said she BLACKED OUT and was RAPED.

When anyone else posts in this forum asking for advice do you start questioning their version of the events that took place? Of course, not.
Click to expand...

there's a difference between being blacked out and being passed out. while blacked out your mind and body function normally, but can't retain new memories, ie. your short term memory is temporarily out of order. if the girl that the OP is talking about willingly and consensually drank alcohol and consumed xanax, then good luck proving rape. it's two intoxicated minors' words against each other. no witnesses.

so once again, i'm not trying to be an asshole here. if the girl was taken advantage of, then i'm sorry, but from the way it sounds, there's nothing that says to me that the guy was any more in the wrong than the girl. do you believe that EVERYONE who says they were raped was raped? i'm sure the girl really does believe that she was and i hope that she can get some help to work through that, but you better be pretty damned sure before you ruin someone's reputation with accusations that serious.
 
Tobala,

I suppose the difference between vehicular manslaughter where the driver is intoxicated and a case where the intoxicated victim is considered raped due to her or his inability to consent is that while we will assign criminal responsibility to a person who knowingly intoxicates herself and then harms another---although in extreme cases one can claim intoxication as a defense against the requisite mental intent---we are less willing to assign them culpability for being harmed by another person who takes advantage of their inability to consent. We want to discourage people from getting drunk and getting behind a wheel; but we also want to discourage people from taking advantage of highly intoxicated persons.

Now, mind you, I'm not talking about a case where someone does something he or she later regrets, but was able to consent to at the time. I'm talking about a case where a person is intoxicated to the point of being unable to consent.
 
Heuristic said:
I'm talking about a case where a person is intoxicated to the point of being unable to consent.
Click to expand...

We had a public speaker at my university recount a story in which something similar to this happened. I do not remember exactly how he was involved in the case, but it was a situation where a guy was on trial for raping a girl, and the details were very fuzzy because the girl was intoxicated to a point that she couldn't remember what had happened. In the end, the guy was found guilty because although it was unknown whether or not she resisted his advances, she was clearly wasted to a point where she had no place to give consent.

I mean, it kind of sucks to be the guy in that situation... because how do you determine when a girl has crossed that line between "drunk" and "so drunk that she is unable to consent"? Maybe the smartest choice would be to not mess with drunk girls- but that's a whole seperate issue that everyone probably has their own opinion on. Morally, I don't know, I can see both sides of it. But legally, the guy was found guilty and sent to jail. So it's possible that even not knowing all the details, that this guy in question could be destined for the same fate. I wouldn't rule it out.
 
[This wasn't good advice, and you know it, naughty boy... :)]

Welcome to Bluelight, Mr. Buzzard!




.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
ThaiDie4 said:
...it was a situation where a guy was on trial for raping a girl, and the details were very fuzzy because the girl was intoxicated to a point that she couldn't remember what had happened. In the end, the guy was found guilty...
Click to expand...
What a bitch, eh? Getting convicted based on the testimony of the sole witness who can't remember what happened. I wish George Carlin were still alive... ;)
 
I suppose teenage boys could carry breathalyzers around so they can know which girls will be dangerous in the morning. We can be quick to forget our own younger years... :)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top