Comments
Please wait...
Comments are closed.
Commenting on this item is available only to members of the site. You can sign in here or create an account here.
is a proud member of the
network
network
All contents © Noisy Creek, Inc.
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
800 Maynard Ave S, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98134
Look at what happens to surivors of rape and sexual assault the moment they come forward. They are ripped apart and questioned in every way possible, and most of all, they are not believed. All that a survivor can ever hope to gain by coming forward is some amount of justice, peace of mind, and possibly saving others from what they went through. My god, people on the media were asking why the hotel employee went into the room. WHEN THAT'S HER JOB.
One in three of the women I know closely have been raped or sexually assaulted. And a couple of the men, too. I have seen how impossible it is for them to take any police or even campus action, and they haven't even had the possibility of the global media spotlight pursuing them wherever they go. People who accuse powerful people of rape/assault do so because they were raped or assaulted.
The knowns: She blames alcohol for her actions. She blames her partner at the same time she blames the guy she had sex with.
Not good relationship material.
The problem with the idea, though, is that it takes women who have had their right to make their own basic decisions taken away from them in one of the most traumatic ways possible and makes that event just the beginning of them not being free to make the choices that seem best to them (and the outcomes of which only they will have to experience) while sending them a false message that they, the victim, are responsible in some way for rape or rape culture. That, the "idea", is extremely harmful to both individual victims and general victims, as many of the aforementioned people and groups have spelled out. It's not cool, and well-meaning people who proceed that way have got to stop.
Part of the problem is much as he wants to believe her, and says he does, he really just doesn't. And given the information he has provided, his doubts are reasonable and legitimate. Based on her statements, it seems unlikely that she was raped.
I could be wrong. But in the unlikely event that she was raped, they are both better off if they break up and she deals with it alone.
LW, she says he took advantage of her. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But what I see is that she took advantage of your absence - to get drunk, to flirt, to exercise bad judgment, and to give full rein to her lack of commitment to your relationship. Sure it won't happen again, as long as you don't leave her alone again. As long as her guilt over this restrains her, which may be about 2-3 months. As long as she isn't confronted with the apparently irresistible combination of your temporary absence, ready alcohol and a hot and willing guy.
Yeah. You're trying to do the right thing, LW, but the right thing isn't what you think it is. The right thing is to say "I'm sorry, I don't think this is working out." And end it.
Oh, well. I'm not ready to get married yet anyway.
Doesn't that seem like a bizarre thing to add to the conversation where you tell your partner that someone raped you?
And my impression is that he's not disgusted that his gf was raped, but that she may be a drunk, fuck-around POS.
This case has the little bullshit bells tinkling in the back of my head. If it were me, I would be pushing my girlfriend to go to the police or counseling. She needs counseling if she was raped, and she needs counseling if she's lying to absolve her own responsibility for drunken unprotected cheating.
If she was raped, my heart goes out to her. Of course, she’s still highly dumpable. Not a DMFA, but dump-able. She admits to kissing this guy, because she thinks that a boyfriend who moved for her isn’t committed enough. Which is a pretty damn lame excuse. It would just depend, as Dan says, on if he thinks she’s worth it.
Yeah, maybe she was really that drunk and she was raped (which is awful), but my gut instinct says no. The guy was a total creeper? So she says, but if so why did she kiss him? How did she get alone with him? Alone doesn’t imply consent, but this sounds very close to blaming booze and exaggerating her intentions to relieve herself of guilt. When she was “comatose”, what exactly did she do to “try to end it”? This is purely from personal experience chatting with them, but I’ve known women whose idea of “trying to end it” is wiggling around a little and mumbling. They don’t seem to understand that if you’ve been consenting up until that moment, particularly if you’re both drunk, you may have to actually say “no” (loudly, not whispered), because some inexperienced/oblivious guys are just aren’t good at picking up subtle hints. I can’t know for certain if she was raped or not, but there are reasons to be skeptical of it.
The LW sound like a genuinely nice guy to me. He may be believing that she was “violated” because that’s easier than admitting she cheated on him, and because he doesn’t want to dismiss an accusation of rape out of hand. I think he gets nice guy points for not just taking “you kissed him” and running to “you were asking for it” (as an asshole would). His worry that it may happen again is rather well founded if she’s kissing guys and getting black out drunk. When I read the letter, I see a guy who wants to believe her because he doesn't want to dismiss her claims, but he still has doubts that show through.
If she was raped, my heart goes out to her. Of course, she’s still highly dumpable. Not a DMFA, but dump-able. She admits to kissing this guy, because she thinks that a boyfriend who moved for her isn’t committed enough. Which is a pretty damn lame excuse. It would just depend, as Dan says, on if he thinks she’s worth it.
Yeah, maybe she was really that drunk and she was raped (which is awful), but my gut instinct says no. The guy was a total creeper? So she says, but if so why did she kiss him? How did she get alone with him? Alone doesn’t imply consent, but this sounds very close to blaming booze and exaggerating her intentions to relieve herself of guilt. When she was “comatose”, what exactly did she do to “try to end it”? This is purely from personal experience chatting with them, but I’ve known women whose idea of “trying to end it” is wiggling around a little and mumbling. They don’t seem to understand that if you’ve been consenting up until that moment, particularly if you’re both drunk, you may have to actually say “no” (loudly, not whispered), because some inexperienced/oblivious guys are just aren’t good at picking up subtle hints. I can’t know for certain if she was raped or not, but there are reasons to be skeptical of it.
The LW sound like a genuinely nice guy to me. He may be believing that she was “violated” because that’s easier than admitting she cheated on him, and because he doesn’t want to dismiss an accusation of rape out of hand. I think he gets nice guy points for not just taking “you kissed him” and running to “you were asking for it” (as an asshole would). His worry that it may happen again is rather well founded if she’s kissing guys and getting black out drunk. When I read the letter, I see a guy who wants to believe her because he doesn't want to dismiss her claims, but he still has doubts that show through.
You were also implying that sometimes rape happens because men just lose control of themselves because they get so damn horny, what with your talking about the 'libido gap' (which, despite being untrue, is something taught to women so they'll fear men - "be careful, girls. Don't kiss and flirt with any man you don't want to fuck, because he might just fuck you anyway"). That also sounds like someone who is more beast than man - someone unable to control their basic urges.
I, personally, think that men are human beings who are generally able to be respectful of other people and control their urges. *You* were the one implying they were one exceptional erection away from becoming a rapist.
I do think it bears repeating (and I'm not saying that you're implying otherwise; I just like to repeat it), that you do have to vocalize (and possibly physically back up) your non-consent, PARTICULARLY if you were consenting up till that moment. Some women simply don't understand that.
Let's say I am seriously way to drunk. Over the course of getting drunk, I was making out with someone with total consent. I have now gotten alone with them, and we're making out (probably with quite a bit of clothing off), and they're drunk as well. Suddenly in my semi-comatose haze, I decide that this isn't the best idea I've ever had and i should probably stop. If I don't say no loud enough to be noticed by a drunk person over any environmental noise, if I don't push them away, if I just kind of wander around my brain and wiggle non-noncommittally, it might not be rape. The guy may be an unobservant jerk and a shitty drunk lover, but I wouldn't call it rape. I would call it a poor freaking decision on my part, and I would consider the guy to be a drunk douche (but not a rapist).
Again, this is coming from a rape victim.
"It hurts me greatly to hear your belief that I wouldn't care that you'd been raped. If you can think something so horrible about me then it says a lot about how you view me. This is a difficult time for you, I know, and it would be best if you spent it with people you are certain care about you and will support you wholeheartedly. You're wrong in thinking that I don't care, but I don't think that it is good for you or good for me if we stay together when you feel that way about me. Here's a list of local sexual assault centres and support helplines, which I very strongly suggest that you call immediately. Good bye, and good luck. "
Then leave and don't look back. Only take her calls if you can provide further information regarding assistance for her sexual assault.
Even if we assume that she was raped, do you really want to be with a person who, when traumatized, turns on the person they care about? Walk away.
A guy too drunk to realize his partner isn't that into it? Sucky, but overall largely forgivable (and besides, one would think that a guy *that* drunk would have problems getting it up to begin with). A guy who just pretends to be drunk enough to use that as his excuse? Rapist - especially if he was purposefully giving her alcohol to get her that drunk.
I'm going off the words in the letter themselves: "eventually she just wasn't in control of the situation and wanted it to end, and tried to end it, but couldn't." That sounds far more like rape than a miscommunication, bad sex or a drunken hookup.
http://mindgatemedia.com/lesson/finding-…
I agree, it's possible that she was assaulted AND she was not interested in being faithful, which are two separate issues. I don't really know of an easy way to exit the situation without being unsupportive. Perhaps someone else could offer a more diplomatic option :[
If the conduct that occurred before the tragic event would have caused you to break up with her; I don't think that the tragic event that followed requires you to keep dating her to be supportive of her, as a consolation prize. It may make you seem more callous to outsiders who don't know the whole story, but such is the unfairness of life.
The assault itself could be a relationship-killer (especially only at six-months) if she is traumatized.
Treat the assault seriously. Get her to tell a close friend or family member and seek some counseling.
But judge the relationship by her actions before the assault. She was testing her commitment, not SFMiP's, when she was flirting, kissing the so-called douchebag. At that point it is all on her, drinks or no.
SFMiP would have to ask himself if he'd end the relationship on those actions alone.
The important thing is for him not to stay in the relationship out of some feeling of obligation, that he needs to help fix things or be a hero. That wouldn't help either of them.
All I'm asking is that basic admission that we not call something a rape that we didn't witness, when we don't even know the name of alleged victim, and don't even live in the same city.
And lets all acknowledge that not all sex we wouldn't consent to stone cold sober is rape. Not all sex we wish we hadn't had is rape. Not all sex we can't remember having is rape. And not all sex we admit was a mistake was rape.
And let's further acknowledge that, while we like our renewed commitment to stopping sexual assault, this "she was drunk it must be rape" thing is a horribly sexist meme prefaced on the stereotype that all women are bad drinkers and that a drunk woman is a victim and not just horny. You're not doing women who want to get drunk, lower their inhibitions, and get laid any favors.
And finally it's not hoisting blame or moral fault on rape victims to point out that she should not have been that drunk--as a practical decision or a matter of personal character. She should not have been that drunk with people she didn't know. She should not have been that drunk and making out with random guys. A person mugged in a dark alley is not morally responsible for an act of violence, but do you know what a self-defense class is? It's a class where you learn not to walk down dark alleys!
We should not allow our sympathy for sexual-assault victims to turn common sense into a taboo. If we stop telling young girls that it's a bad idea to get black out drunk, especially in public, especially in mixed company with people they don't know, we're not doing anything particularly enlightened because we're going to get a lot of girls hurt.
...And it doesn't even interfer with our "hey, don't rape people" message.
Reply to me @ 112: "Rape doesn't have to be violent to still be rape (see: this scenario). But a guy who will fuck (rape) a passed-out drunk person, even without violence, is more beast than man."
You lost me, dude. Because you've just disqualified anything you've said as having anything to do with what I've said.
There. You've just received instruction from someone you chastised for living in a smaller world. What's your excuse?
If for some reason you're hooking up with "women who want to get drunk, lower their inhibitions, and get laid," encourage her to express her joyful drunken desire out loud, into your phone, so you can remind her the next day (when her inhibitions return) just how much she wanted that sex, and how happy it made her. Also, it will protect you if she changes her story. In this day of young people always recording every moment of their lives, why do we even have the he said/she said problem any more?
Example: A woman is very drunk--staggering, almost passed out drunk--cannot consent.
Example: A boy is underage according to the laws of the state he lives in--cannot consent.
Example: A woman is comatose (think Kill Bill vol. 1)--cannot consent.
Example: A man has severe mental handicaps--cannot consent.
None of these require violence in order to be rape. None of them require the victim think of themselves as rape victims in order to meet the legal definition of rape.
And yeah, she should take a second look at her drinking habits.
And lets all acknowledge that not all sex we wouldn't consent to stone cold sober is rape. Not all sex we wish we hadn't had is rape. Not all sex we can't remember having is rape. And not all sex we admit was a mistake was rape.
That's great. But those aren't the circumstances the letter writer relates. Let's take a look at those ACTUAL circumstances again:
"... she was too drunk to make any decisions about anything ... what amounted to a comatose person ... she just wasn't in control of the situation and wanted it to end, and tried to end it, but couldn't."
I wonder, what would be required to make this rape in your eyes? Or the eyes of anyone reading this who think she wasn't raped?
Hmm. Should that be gender neutral, or do women sexing drunk boys never have to worry about things like rape charges.
/skeptical stare at your gender bias
You're right that both boys and girls should be warned about pushing their partners too far. But I'll add to your gendered correction the reminder that this applies to gay relationships too.
(a) Nobody suggests that confusion might be lessened and communication improved if women did more of the approaching and propositioning? There's no confusion over whether the girl said Yes or No when she's the one saying, "YOU!".
(b) Nobody suggests to guys that at the first sign of uncertainty they should get up, say, "hey, you aren't certain, so it ain't gonna happen tonight".
Trouble is, (a) ain't gonna happen because women don't have to, and humans as a general rule don't do work that somebody else is doing for them, and (b) wouldn't work at all because it wouldn't result in pissed off women realizing that they wouldn't have any sex unless they clear up the message that they're sending and so start sending clear messages. No, they'd just go find somebody else who will treat a "maybe" that was really a "convince me" as a "yes"; the guys who default to acting as if they hear a "no" on hearing "maybe" just don't get laid, and the persuaders will. That's why the whole "the only consent is a daylight-clear YES!" thing drives me insane: it's wonderful in theory and morally unchallengeable .... but it simply isn't, as a general rule, how our fucked-up society handles the social dance of pre-cotius. Sad, but true.
I know some women do say no, in order to be pushed harder. That's fucked up, and they need to be called on their bullshit. There's a great Louis CK episode on this. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=za7jQ1s1B…
(Smiles.)
Ummmmmmmmmmmmm................... No......
Most of our society acts as if cultural change has never happened.
As for your two points, agreed.
Let's keep things in perspective and remember that this poor girl was raped (by Slog's own declaration)! Jesus, you have no perspective sometimes.
Um, no. But apparently a lot of women do act that way.
I suppose the problem with rape is, on the one hand, that it, like all crimes, has gray areas around it (did s/he consent, or did s/he not? did the other person understand that s/he consented/didn't consent, or didn't s/he understand that? legitimally, or not? is someone lying a little bit, or very much?); but on the other hand it (rape) has become so emblematic of the relationship between the sexes ('one of the things that supports and perpetuates "patriarchy"') that it is difficult to look at such gray areas without interpreting them ad nauseam as implying a whole list of bad things about men, or about women; or about sexists and feminists, and their respective power over our society.
In the case at hand, Dan is quite right: a lot (everything?) depends on whether the woman drank so much she was really comatose, or whether she only drank enough to get over her own inhibitions ('my BF won't mind'). Likewise, was the guy just preying on her -- keeping himself relatively sober while getting her drunk -- or was he just as drunk (or as sober) as she was? Note that both parties have good reasons to lie, in this case.
How can we know? How can we judge this case, without this information? All we can do now is talk about hypotheticals, which basically shows our willingness to take this or that person's perspective in this story.
Meanwhile, my thoughts tend to agree that, regardless of whether or not rape occurred, the fact that she was willing to make out and be alone with that guy suggests that she wasn't that serious about her commitment to her boyfriend. Maybe she's realized now that the should have been; maybe now that she saw the danger of losing her boyfriend she decided she had been taking him for granted. So, maybe she deserves forgiveness. As Dan says, many a relationship has learned from such incidents and gone on to become better and deeper. Maybe this will be their case. I hope so. It's the BF's call now, though. He has to decide what he thinks is the best for him.
Where The Fuck Did I Say. What You The Fuck Are Attributing To Me?
All hate depends on someone insisting something. What isn't heinous is allowing someone their own story of what they're going through. What all heinousness depends on is thwarting someone own story of what they are going through. All civil rights transgressions depend on thwarting someone's own story of what they are going through.
Stop rewriting my story where you cite no ambiguity in what I actually say.
R Taylor is covering his sloppy-ass thinking, and that at least makes sense to me. You're just hating on me. So stop hating on me. Ok?
Having said that, I think the letter writer's attitude is too implausible to be anything other than a fake.
I don't know enough to think other than that the girlfriend's behavior might be plausible. But the letter writer is 24, and he moved across the country to live with her. If I can continue to use terms I've introduced in this thread, those are circumstances of someone expanding his world. He isn't someone from a big world, but a small world.
A small-world person isn't going to say, "my girlfriend's cheating shook me out of my complacency, now things have gotten out of hand and I don't know what to do." A small-world person isn't going to intuit, "I have to do what it takes to survive, and that's doing what I've never done before, which is to forgive my girlfriend for doubting me."
Death is a form of change, and change is a form of death. A small-world person is going to say something that will comes across the mind even for a brief second of anyone going through what he's going through, which is, "If I leave this relationship, I know I can survive this." And what anyone would think will dominate the field of vision of someone who lives in a small world, where it wouldn't of someone who knows how to manage a larger world. That's why children can get caught up in obsessions, the intrigue of which adults may find completely baffling.
No such person as letter writer presents himself can exist.
Also, does your concept of forgiveness require continuing the relationship? If I liked either (OR BOTH, which is very different from liking only one) of them, I'd advise him to forgive her but end the relationship.
You and Ms Kim both sometimes remind me of Jane Bennet, even though you seem at times to attempt to be Fanny Price and she doesn't. That gives me something to ponder.
As for #140, there is a beautifully obvious Austensplaining applicable to that situation. I shall temporarily defer the opportunity to Ms Cute.
I understand that the handy seventeen page form for this is available for free from finer gender studies departments everywhere. ;)
'Reply to me @ 112: "Rape doesn't have to be violent to still be rape (see: this scenario). But a guy who will fuck (rape) a passed-out drunk person, even without violence, is more beast than man."
You lost me, dude.'
I inferred that when 112 talked about rape not requiring violence, you did not follow his train of thought. This is a not-uncommon point of confusion in some 'small-world' folks, and I attributed it to you. If I'm wrong about that, I apologize. But I don't see the 'hate' in my response to you.
As I look back over your exchange with R. Taylor, something keeps coming up: the idea that rape is a beastly act. I hope you agree with that. However, a beastly act does not require violence. It seems to me that you focused on the word 'beastly' a tad more than was necessary.
Back to your original question at #59: "So does no young woman ever need to hear about how quickly men's arousal flairs up?"
I think you're missing a point that R Taylor tried to make clear to you. It doesn't matter what women know or don't know about men's arousal. It's every sexual partner's job to ensure that A) their partner consents and B) their partner is capable of consenting. If you're sober and your partner isn't, you'd better be damned sure they really consent. In the context of your question, it's the man's job to manage his arousal. Women need to be clear about their *own* arousal.
Not to say she wasn't raped. Just that no one 'got her drunk.' That part was completely within her will and control. As with drunk driving, stupid decisions one makes about alcohol are one's own stupid decisions and not other people's. (And in this letter, as others have suggested, probably a separate issue to consider from the assault/stupid regretted sex.)
I can see the inexperienced drinker scenario. I just dislike the way this seems to remove agency from the woman in question (broadly speaking, not this particular letter). And incapacity can be hard to judge: sure, actually passed out is clear, but drunkenly falling into bed while making out gets pretty ambiguous. It's very open to later reinterpretation. (And people manage to have drunken sex they don't remember, but categorize as consensual, all the time.)
I don't think an accusation of rape should depend on comparative blood alcohol level--that if he's just as drunk as her it's dumb sex, but if he drops below a certain level it becomes rape. Were the woman sober and resisting (say no loud enough to be heard, try to push him away rather than rely on subtle body language to indicate a change of heart), his being drunk would be no defense. And it shouldn't be.
Why not? That seems to be the crux of the rape question.
She did not have the will power? She was actually unconscious? She was physically forced?
@152 Maybe she wasn't able to get it together to make her point convincingly. Being very drunk can make it hard to complete even simple, ordinary tasks, like putting a key in a keyhole or brushing one's teeth. She might feel that she wanted him off her, but find it hard to communicate that, especially to someone who really didn't want to get that message. Have you ever been very drunk?
You're arbitrarily and self-servingly referring to the contrast of terms with overlapping meanings. In that regard, as long as the question, "does it really matter what I say?" remains an open issue with you, I'm going to stop paying attention to you.
I'm sorry but y'all can be as angry as you like about flirting with another guy or kissing him (on the cheek, making out, weird over-emotional kissing?), but once you get to no, didn't want, made clear didn't want, no wanting, no, then it's rape. I'm sorry that this girl kissed another dude. That was clearly a mistake for several reasons: A) this creep raped her B) her boyfriend can't understand that she was raped because he's blinded by this comparatively minor relationship faux pas and C) the whole world will only focus on her culpability from her on out.
If you take the kissing out, what do you have? RAPE. Should her behavior matter? No. It's not a crime to drink, or kiss or cheat on your boyfriend. It is illegal to fuck an unwilling, incapable person.
Also, I would bet money that half of the commenters on this site got drunker than they should have over the holidays. Get off your motherfucking high horses about drinking. People drink.
Finally, if he doesn't trust his girlfriend's version of events, she should dump him. If things happened the way she says they happened, I can't imagine her dealing with both rape and a piece of shit man who doesn't understand rape.
In your very first post, you asked to be informed. I've tried to answer your question; I've apologized for misunderstanding an exchange you had with another commenter. Where are we getting off-track, here?
"People should try to avoid having sex with someone who is not participating happily in the sex, who is just lying there, either comatose or unhappy about the sex."
I agree completely. If they're unconscious it's rape, if they're not into it it's gross. Though I do think the standard is less likely to be met if the person initiating the sex is drunk or inexperienced, which are two reasons beyond lack of empathy for not picking up on the not happily participating thing. (An inexperienced drunk 17 year old thinking "omg sex is finally happening!" probably isn't going to pick up on subtle 'not into it' cues from his partner.)
But we need rules that work in the real world, and if you get utterly wasted, assuming that everyone around you is more sober, concerned for your welfare, and willing and able to use better judgment than you're showing isn't realistic. (Unless you follow the advice of getting wasted only in groups of people you can trust.) Maybe they're just as drunk. Maybe they've wanted to fuck you for hours or years (someone's example upthread) and if you're willing to fumble drunkenly into bed with them they aren't inclined to stop and try to conduct field sobriety tests, living versions of the phones that make you do math problems before they let you dial your ex.
I wish everyone were emotionally and/or physically put off by the reality of someone not fully into the sex and would immediately stop, even if they were drunk as a skunk. But that's not the real world. It's still rape if one is raped. But it's overly victimmy to make it the rapist's fault one got drunk, too.
"I am not now to learn," replied Mr Collins, with a formal wave of the hand, "that it is usual with young ladies to reject the addresses of the man whom they secretly mean to accept, when he first applies for their favour; and that sometimes the refusal is repeated a second or even a third time. I am therefore by no means discouraged by what you have just said, and shall hope to lead you to the altar ere long." [followed by...]
"When I do myself the honour of speaking to you next on the subject, I shall hope to receive a more favourable answer than you have now given me; though I am far from accusing you of cruelty at present, because I know it to be the established custom of your sex to reject a man on the first application, and perhaps even now you have said as much to encourage my suit as would be consistent with the true delicacy of the female character." [followed by...]
"You must give me leave to flatter myself, my dear cousin, that your refusal of my addresses is merely words of course. [after listing reasons...] As I must therefore conclude that you are not serious in your objection of me, I shall choose to attribute it to your wish of increasing my love by suspense, according to the usual practice of elegant females." [followed by...]
"You are uniformly charming!" cried he, with an air of awkward gallantry, "and I am persuaded that when sanctioned by the express authority of both your excellent parents, my proposals will not fail of being acceptable."
To such perseverance in wilful self-deception Elizabeth would make no reply, and immediately and in silence withdrew; determined, that if he persisted in considering her repeated refusals as flattering encouragement, to apply to her father, whose negative might be uttered in such a manner as must be decisive, and whose behaviour at least could not be mistaken for the affectation and coquetry of an elegant female.
cf loses me with the first thing he has to say to me @ 126: "I'm not sure what's unclear about rape not having to be violent to still be rape."
cf @ 159: "In your very first post, you asked to be informed. I've tried to answer your question;"
Whatever, hater. If you're going to keep sheltering your inaccurate implication I said it has to be violent to be rape, I can keep calling your implication hateful it all day.
This was a random, drunken hook up. Evidence? She was flirting and making out with the guy when she had less alcohol in her system. Next, she had enough capacity to use her defense mechanisms to RATIONALIZE that her boyfriend wouldn't care that much about her hooking up with this guy...
It's really easy blaming everything on alcohol and to dehumanize the abstract idea of the "random, creepy dude", but if she though he was so creepy, why was she flirting with him and then fucking him? I'm sure there were a lot of other dudes at this party who were less creepy. Oh, but, of course, any of them could be labeled a "creep" retroactively after any LW's alcoholic girlfriend hooks up with them and finds it inconvenient the next morning!
Women like this, and people like you who enable them, make it all worse for the women who are actually raped. You can't just go around retroactively labeling consensual sex as rape because it has become inconvenient for you at the present time! Fuck you guys, and your kneejerk labeling of a sequence of bad choices as "rape"! You disappoint me, and you disgust me...
You guys are young, and young people do stupid things. As long as the stupid thing isn't constantly ongoing, I don't see any reason to break it off now. Fool me once, etc., etc., right?
If she tried to stop the act of sex while it was in process - & the LW says she did - then the sex occurring anyhow was unwanted, against her will - rape. It doesn't matter if someone flirts w/ someone else, makes out with them - male or female - they have the right to say no at any point in the process, 1st base, 2nd base, 3rd base, sex initiated..at any point. There's no "point of no return" where someone just can't control themselves.
When people say "rape culture", "slut-shaming", etc, what you just wrote would be why they do. Yeah, it was her choice to drink & flirt, & it wasn't a good choice, that doesn't mean the LW's GF deserved to get raped. And above are several people totally ready to believe that she's a slut who deserved what happened to her.
No, not all sex we regret = rape. But sex you physically can't consent to, sex you try to stop but can't? Yeah. That's rape.
There's an abstract of "creepy dude" as there's some dudes who are predators. Guys who have sex with women, women who are stumbling-down drunk, even after they have told the guy to stop, are predators.
I'm starting to think the only one engaged in 'hate' here is you.
To SFMiP, the LW: Dan addresses this issue as if it was one of cheating. Which I guess the flirtation & kissing part more or less are. So Dan's right about that. But if you believe your GF when she says she tried to stop things, then you have issues too. She shouldn't make you feel disgusted, that feeling means you blame her in some way for what happened. At the crux of your letter & most people's reactions to it seem to be, do you believe her when she says she tried to stop what was happening? If you do believe her, & wanna make a go of things with her, then you & she might need some counseling or other professional help. You're young, & 6 months is not a long enough time to have the bedrock you need to work through these things. But you sound like you don't all-the-way believe her & that's gonna be a thorn in your foot about this relationship. If that's the case, I'd make sure your GF has friends & support, & end things as humanely as possible.
cf @ 166: "I apologized for misunderstanding you.... I'm starting to think the only one engaged in 'hate' here is you."
No conditional apology is an apology. Because the obligation to confirm the condition goes to the offender. No one gets to make the people they offend jump through hoops for them, then take credit for contrition.
I'm not smart enough to give you credit for an apology you didn't give.
Go peddle crazy somewhere else; we're full up here.
Somewhere out there, there is a boyfriend for this woman, a boyfriend who doesn't mind that she flirts and kisses strangers when the boyfriend's back is turned. But the letter-writer *does* care, presumably he values trust above random hook-ups with strangers. These two should probably not be dating.