Join TSR now for chat about life, relationships, fashion and more…Sign up now

Guys. Would you want to know? Would you ever be able to forgive me? Watch

    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    I see everything from a guy's view, being one myself.



    Yes, it exhibited poor judgement and was immature, as people tend to be when they are (I presume she's, what... 19 or 20?). My point was that you judge the two separately, and considering she did not consent her moral culpability is the same as if nothing had happened, both from a moral and a legal perspective.



    I think my approach is absolutely about weighing things up. What would the reaction be if this guy had stabbed her or shot her? Concern over her wellbeing, or irritation and disappointment about how she got there?

    The superficially sexual character of the offence shouldn't obscure the fact that this it is a gravely serious physical and mental violation, and it isn't reasonably foreseeable that someone will rape you if you say no, and the relative of gravity of the two things should be a bit of a no-brainer in terms of the approach

    (would be the same as if my partner, who does a lot of mountain climbing, was badly injured doing an ascent he knew was much harder... it would kinda be secondary to making sure he was okay)
    My mistake.

    The whole issue of the judgement you're making against the OP's OH though is based around the entire situation, how believable it is and so forth.

    As I've said, you examine the circumstances, and even if it happened 100% as the OP has described it, for an involved party hearing that description, it sounds very, very dubious. Therefore to try and say an OH that isn't 100% supportive and believing is a bad person is just unfair. And reverse the roles, as an exercise if you would, do you honestly believe your opinion on the matter would be the same? I mean, swap the OP to a male, the other person in the bed to a female. Do you, in your heart of hearts believe they would recieve the same benefit of the doubt?

    If we were to make another analogy.

    Say you have a friend, a friend who has a history of playing with fire. One day their shed burns down, and they were the only one inside. Of course your first concern is for their health, but if they then claim that they don't know what happened, how the shed burnt down, but matches are found in there. Would there be no suspicion. I agree, first concern is for the wellbeing of the friend, but such suspicion is healthy and natural in a situation where the story is, how to put it, not unbelievable, but rather, sails close to the wind? So to then judge this man on that suspicion is unfair, in my opinion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Our actions have consequences, YOU chose to become intoxicated with alcohol in the first place, knowing it would cloud your judgement, a chain of YOUR OWN decisions led to this taking place, you didn't leave, you got back in the bed, you didn't try to stop him, you allowed him to finish in your mouth. Grow up and take responsibility, tell your boyfriend. Like I said, our actions have consequences, now go, go face the consequences of YOUR actions.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    As I've said, you examine the circumstances, and even if it happened 100% as the OP has described it, for an involved party hearing that description, it sounds very, very dubious. Therefore to try and say an OH that isn't 100% supportive and believing is a bad person is just unfair. And reverse the roles, as an exercise if you would, do you honestly believe your opinion on the matter would be the same? I mean, swap the OP to a male, the other person in the bed to a female. Do you, in your heart of hearts believe they would recieve the same benefit of the doubt?
    I think the fundamental biological differences make it harder for me to visualise the reverse, but having thought about it, it does seem like it's more dependent on relationship status. But I would emphasise that your relationship status confers no greater or lesser culpability for being raped, though it does speak to judgement and consideration for the feelings of others if the bf would have a problem with it.

    As I said in my edit, I do find it hard to visualise, being gay. We have a completely different relationship dynamic,
    I find it hard to imagine a situation where I wouldn't trust my partner on what he said, especially if it was of the magnitude of rape. Perhaps it's as much a decision to emphatically believe, but considering we have a life together, contemplating marriage and children, I suppose we wouldn't have got this far if I didn't trust his judgement and character.

    If we were to make another analogy.

    Say you have a friend, a friend who has a history of playing with fire. One day their shed burns down, and they were the only one inside. Of course your first concern is for their health, but if they then claim that they don't know what happened, how the shed burnt down, but matches are found in there. Would there be no suspicion.

    I agree, first concern is for the wellbeing of the friend, but such suspicion is healthy and natural in a situation where the story is, how to put it, not unbelievable, but rather, sails close to the wind? So to then judge this man on that suspicion is unfair, in my opinion.
    Interesting analogy, and I can see what you mean insofar as the circumstances make it a bit nebulous, but the alternative (that his gf is the type of person who would fabricate a rape accusation to avoid responsibility for a one-off infidelity / he wrongly throws doubt on her claim) is pretty grim.

    I think he's entitled to come to his own conclusions about her judgement in terms of what lead to her being there, and their suitability based on that (that she doesn't exercise reasonable judgement drinking, when to go home etc, not getting into guys beds who are likely to make a pass), but I don't think you can really question the claim itself without undermining the whole basis of trust in the relationship, which isn't undermined in quite the same way by a drunken error of judgement.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by harrismahmood)
    Our actions have consequences, YOU chose to become intoxicated with alcohol in the first place, knowing it would cloud your judgement, a chain of YOUR OWN decisions led to this taking place, you didn't leave, you got back in the bed, you didn't try to stop him, you allowed him to finish in your mouth. Grow up and take responsibility, tell your boyfriend. Like I said, our actions have consequences, now go, go face the consequences of YOUR actions.
    Funny, you telling someone to take responsibility for their actions when you're excusing a rapist of culpability for his actions. That's usually only an attitude I hear from teenage boys, and even then not seriously.

    If someone drinks alcohol, do they deserve to be raped? If they make an error of judgement, do they deserve to be raped? Looking at the chain of causation, whose decision was the final causative factor that could have prevented it from happening? The victim or the rapist?

    Or would I be right in assuming that your view on this, sexuality and women and alcohol rolled up into one situation, is coloured by a certain religious persuasion?
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    I think the fundamental biological differences make it harder for me to visualise the reverse, but having thought about it, it does seem like it's more dependent on relationship status. But I would emphasise that your relationship status confers no greater or lesser culpability for being raped, though it does speak to judgement and consideration for the feelings of others if the bf would have a problem with it.

    As I said in my edit, I do find it hard to visualise, being gay. We have a completely different relationship dynamic,
    I find it hard to imagine a situation where I wouldn't trust my partner on what he said, especially if it was of the magnitude of rape. Perhaps it's as much a decision to emphatically believe, but considering we have a life together, contemplating marriage and children, I suppose we wouldn't have got this far if I didn't trust his judgement and character.



    Interesting analogy, and I can see what you mean insofar as the circumstances make it a bit nebulous, but the alternative (that his gf is the type of person who would fabricate a rape accusation to avoid responsibility for a one-off infidelity / he wrongly throws doubt on her claim) is pretty grim.

    I think he's entitled to come to his own conclusions about her judgement in terms of what lead to her being there, and their suitability based on that (that she doesn't exercise reasonable judgement drinking, when to go home etc, not getting into guys beds who are likely to make a pass), but I don't think you can really question the claim itself without undermining the whole basis of trust in the relationship, which isn't undermined in quite the same way by a drunken error of judgement.
    First of all, let us remove the word rape. The OP was not raped, she was sexually assaulted. A serious issue, but it is not rape. It's like saying murder when you mean assault. And once again, let us frame the incident with the circumstance. The other guy ejaculated in/on her face, and the OP says she did not resist this for whatever reason. Again, clearly sexual assault. However, within the circumstance, IE, the girl knew the guy was jacking off next to her, didn't try to move out of the way etc, I can certainly see how the BF may have an issue believing the lack of willingness of the OP to remove herself from the situation.

    I think it's worth reiterating your mistaking the situation for rape. Examine again the OP's story. She was fully aware the guy was masturbating next to her, after the guy had already come on to her. The guy then moved, positioned himself in/around her mouth, and proceeded to ejaculate. By the OP's own admission she did not attempt to move or leave, and it would appear she stayed in the bed. Again, reverse the genders, or even put your OH in her place. Put yourself in her place. Can you think of a reason that you would stay in bed, with someone who is trying to get with you, who is masturbating, and then by all appearance, allow them to ejaculate onto you?

    Just playing devil's advocate, but the situation seems less than straight forward.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Funny, you telling someone to take responsibility for their actions when you're excusing a rapist of culpability for his actions. That's usually only an attitude I hear from teenage boys, and even then not seriously.

    If someone drinks alcohol, do they deserve to be raped? If they make an error of judgement, do they deserve to be raped? Looking at the chain of causation, whose decision was the final causative factor that could have prevented it from happening? The victim or the rapist?

    Or would I be right in assuming that your view on this, sexuality and women and alcohol rolled up into one situation, is coloured by a certain religious persuasion?
    Ahh, that moment when someone makes assumptions, and I get the pleasure of whipping the floor with them. Most certainly a good start to the morning, well, lets see here - please point me to where I excused the so called rapist. If the act was VOLUNTARY and NOT forced, then it is not rape, no matter how much she regrets it, she consented to it by not stopping him. She admits this over and over again, if she however, had tried to stop him when he was on top,or did not get back into the bed and he chased her, it would be a different story and he could be accused of rape. We don't even know if this is the whole story, who's to say the OP is telling us the complete unbias truth? Afterall she was drunk and doesn't remember it properly. And to your last point, you would be wrong in assuming so, my view is my own, it is not influenced by my religion, it is simply influenced my view on morality and by my philosophy. Now, pleasestop making assumptions, fool.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Steevee)
    First of all, let us remove the word rape. The OP was not raped, she was sexually assaulted. A serious issue, but it is not rape.
    Actually forcing your penis into another person's mouth is most emphatically rape. From S1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003

    1Rape

    (1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

    (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
    (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
    (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.

    I think it's worth reiterating your mistaking the situation for rape.
    I don't mean to be patronising or hostile, but it's worth you knowing what the law is vis a vis sexual offences if you're going to offer such an emphatic opinion.

    Can you think of a reason that you would stay in bed, with someone who is trying to get with you, who is masturbating,
    I can foresee that if I was far from home, extremely drunk, it was 0 degrees outside with no public transport, I might be less than enthusiastic to jump straight out of bed if I knew it meant walking through the snow for hours. I wouldn't put myself in that situation, but I don't think I can attach any value judgement to that (at least in relation to the likelihood of telling the truth about being raped)

    and then by all appearance, allow them to ejaculate onto you?
    There's no way a reasonable observer would infer from her conduct that she consented. She expressly denied consent, she was drunk, she said nothing to encourage him, and simply failing to stop someone cannot be read as anything like consent, from a legal perspective or even from a human perspective where the subject of one's advances usually reciprocates. Even indubitably willing partners aren't usually up for having someone *** in their mouth with no foreplay while they're lying half-asleep in bed.

    Just playing devil's advocate, but the situation seems less than straight forward.
    I think the point is that it's wholly plausible. There's nothing in there that's inconsistent with the claim that she didn't consent, and not knowing her personally or seeing any solid reason to doubt her account, I'd be inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by harrismahmood)
    If the act was VOLUNTARY and NOT forced, then it is not rape, no matter how much she regrets it, she consented to it by not stopping him.
    Failing to stop, or failing to attempt to stop, a rapist doesn't make it voluntary. This is settled law.

    There are good reasons why someone might not attempt to stop a rapist (shock, fear of additional violence if they resist, etc).

    At the point where he made the decision to rape, which decision was the one that would be guaranteed to prevent the offence? The rapist choosing not to rape, or the victim attempting to resist?

    I mean, I know some religious types hold the bizarre belief that a woman's body can't get pregnant from "true rape", maybe you hold that belief too.

    Edit: Oh, I forgot; this is the bit where I should do some mock moaning and begging for mercy in the face of your impressive logic and persuasive use of the English language. You did know, it's "wiping the floor", didn't you? If you were whipping the floor you'd just be whipping an inanimate object, which would look... well, rather silly.
    Offline

    15
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by MostUncivilised)
    Actually forcing your penis into another person's mouth is most emphatically rape. From S1 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003

    1Rape

    (1)A person (A) commits an offence if—

    (a)he intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of another person (B) with his penis,
    (b)B does not consent to the penetration, and
    (c)A does not reasonably believe that B consents.



    I don't mean to be patronising or hostile, but it's worth you knowing what the law is vis a vis sexual offences if you're going to offer such an emphatic opinion.



    I can foresee that if I was far from home, extremely drunk, it was 0 degrees outside with no public transport, I might be less than enthusiastic to jump straight out of bed if I knew it meant walking through the snow for hours.



    There's no way a reasonable observer would infer from her conduct that she consented. She expressly denied consent, she was drunk, she said nothing to encourage him, and simply failing to stop someone cannot be read as anything like consent, from a legal perspective or even from a human perspective where the subject of one's advances usually reciprocates. Even indubitably willing partners aren't usually up for having someone *** in their mouth with no foreplay while they're lying half-asleep in bed.



    I think the point is that it's wholly plausible. There's nothing in there that's inconsistent with the claim that she didn't consent, and not knowing her personally or seeing any solid reason to doubt her account, I'd be inclined to give her the benefit of the doubt
    Did the OP say it was into her mouth? As I understood I thought she said he ejaculated into her mouth, my mistake. As it is though, I'd stick my by point by reason of colloquial definition of rape, but thatnk you for the clarification.

    And you don't suppose there might have been a sofa or chair in the house? Even the floor would be prefferable to me than staying in a bed with someone masturbating over me when I don't want them to and I have a partner.

    You're assuming I mean the man in the bed with the OP? I am reffering to the BF, who obviously did not witness the incident. And here I think is where law differs from human reaction. In a case of a violent vaginal/anal rape etc, offering no resistance is certainly not a sign of consent. However, again, framed in the circumstance, staying in bed when she knows the guy is masturbating, making no attempt to move when the guy positions himself to ejaculate onto/in her etc. Personally, I would feel that whilst that might not be consent, it is certainly not the reaction I would expect, from myself or someone I was with. There are so many points where this escalation could have and should have been avoided, infact the more I think over it, the more I feel that the OP was in the wrong for allowing it to get to that stage. Let me be clear, I am in no way saying she invited the actual assault, but the whole circumstance should never have been allowed to happen by her.

    As you say, perhaps for you it's different, you have a different view on people and relationships. If you honestly say you would believe your partner wholly after hearing the account, then fair play to you. I am however, of a different opinion.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    Again with the assumptions, what an ignorant fool, just because my last name is 'Mahmood', you automatically think i'm some religious nut? You're taking it to hypotheticals, the OP never stated that she was afraid, you're ignoring the context of the situation, they'd been good friend for a long time, she had resisted before, and he showed no act of violence, also you've hardly addressed anything from my previous comment, therefore, if your next comment is the same, I will feel there is no reason to reply.

    Edit:Insulting me will not make you win this argument, or mocking me, you are simply diverting.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by harrismahmood)
    Ahh, that moment when someone makes assumptions, and I get the pleasure of whipping the floor with them. Most certainly a good start to the morning, well, lets see here - please point me to where I excused the so called rapist. If the act was VOLUNTARY and NOT forced, then it is not rape, no matter how much she regrets it, she consented to it by not stopping him. She admits this over and over again, if she however, had tried to stop him when he was on top,or did not get back into the bed and he chased her, it would be a different story and he could be accused of rape. We don't even know if this is the whole story, who's to say the OP is telling us the complete unbias truth? Afterall she was drunk and doesn't remember it properly. And to your last point, you would be wrong in assuming so, my view is my own, it is not influenced by my religion, it is simply influenced my view on morality and by my philosophy. Now, pleasestop making assumptions, fool.
    Someone who is intoxicated is unable to give consent (just as someone who is underage is also unable). A sex act involving someone who does not give consent, or is considered to be unable to to give consent, is rape. You might not agree with that, but that is how the law is interpreted in the UK.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    Someone who is intoxicated is unable to give consent (just as someone who is underage is also unable). A sex act involving someone who does not give consent, or is considered to be unable to to give consent, is rape. You might not agree with that, but that is how the law is interpreted in the UK.
    :ditto: it would be classed as taking advantage, regardless of her (I assume regrettable?) decisions to get intoxicated prior
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    Someone who is intoxicated is unable to give consent (just as someone who is underage is also unable). A sex act involving someone who does not give consent, or is considered to be unable to to give consent, is rape. You might not agree with that, but that is how the law is interpreted in the UK.
    Your argument is based on the assumption that whatever the law says, is right. A year ago in Nottingham if you injured a burglar he/she could take you to court. Over a century ago, if you failed in suicide, you were killed (fail in logic). Not so long ago, slaving people because of their skin was fine in America, not so long ago, Women had hardly any rights. The law at times is flawed, rape law is flawed, did you know by law a man cannot be raped? Can you not see the failure in that logic? The OP chose to get drunk, and in that state she consented, because by your definition, drunk sex is rape? Hmm.
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by harrismahmood)
    Your argument is based on the assumption that whatever the law says, is right. A year ago in Nottingham if you injured a burglar he/she could take you to court. Over a century ago, if you failed in suicide, you were killed (fail in logic). Not so long ago, slaving people because of their skin was fine in America, not so long ago, Women had hardly any rights. The law at times is flawed, rape law is flawed, did you know by law a man cannot be raped? Can you not see the failure in that logic? The OP chose to get drunk, and in that state she consented, because by your definition, drunk sex is rape? Hmm.
    Hmmm indeed. My "argument" was actually a simple statement of how the law is interpreted in the UK. And I didn't know that "by law a man cannot be raped" because the law says (since 2003) that is possible. So yes, I do see the failure in your logic - do you?
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by harrismahmood)
    Again with the assumptions, what an ignorant fool, just because my last name is 'Mahmood', you automatically think i'm some religious nut?
    I made a valid and reasonable assumption that there was a good possibility you'd be Muslim, and I asked whether your view was informed by your religion. You implicitly confirmed your religion in the first post.

    Considering your subsequent answers, that it's not really rape unless accompanied by an act of violence and a women's resistance, seem to confirm the "nut" bit of the equation.

    You're taking it to hypotheticals, the OP never stated that she was afraid, you're ignoring the context of the situation, they'd been good friend for a long time,
    You don't seem to have read it very thoroughly. She clearly states that it occurred while she was half-asleep, and it occurred before she knew what was happening. Whether she was afraid or not is immaterial to the law. The context of her relationship to the accused is also immaterial; the law is the same whether he is a stranger or her husband.

    she had resisted before, and he showed no act of violence, also you've hardly addressed anything from my previous comment,
    Again, you're aptly demonstrating your ignorance of the law on rape. There is absolutely no requirement that rape be accompanied by an act of violence.

    therefore, if your next comment is the same, I will feel there is no reason to reply.
    You're welcome to do or not do as you please. You simply becoming aware of your deficit of legal knowledge when it comes to rape is enough reward for me.

    Edit:Insulting me will not make you win this argument, or mocking me, you are simply diverting.
    I dare say I'm judging you by your own standards; that is, your obvious misconceptions about the criminal law as it stands with regards to rape, and your blustering overconfidence that you'd "whip the floor" with me.

    Usually better not to make such a blatant mistake if you're going to proclaim how awesome you are. You must be new to the internets.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    Someone who is intoxicated is unable to give consent (just as someone who is underage is also unable). A sex act involving someone who does not give consent, or is considered to be unable to to give consent, is rape. You might not agree with that, but that is how the law is interpreted in the UK.
    You can absolutely consent to sex when you are intoxicated.

    This is settled law and recently confirmed by the Court of Appeal in R v Bree

    “If, through drink (or for any other reason) the complainant has temporarily lost her capacity to choose whether to have intercourse on the relevant occasion, she is not consenting.

    However, where the complainant has voluntarily consumed even substantial quantities of alcohol, but nevertheless remains capable of choosing whether or not to have intercourse, and in drink agrees to do so, this would not be rape"
    It seems there are lots of misconceptions out there about the law, that oral rape is only sexual assault, that intoxication vitiates consent, that a rape victim has to physically resist and/or the act be accompanied by violence to qualify. Very worrying, the amount of urban legends and received wisdom on this subject

    Edit: I hasten to add, I agree with the emphasis in your quote of Harris' post. The assertion that the nature of the offence is judged by whether it was accompanied by additional violent offences against the person, and by physical resistance of the victim, is absurd and wrong. You are quite right to say that approach has no basis in English law.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Pastaferian)
    Hmmm indeed. My "argument" was actually a simple statement of how the law is interpreted in the UK. And I didn't know that "by law a man cannot be raped" because the law says (since 2003) that is possible. So yes, I do see the failure in your logic - do you?
    Under section 1(1) SOA 2003 a defendant, A, is guilty of rape if:

    A intentionally penetrates the vagina, anus or mouth of B (the complainant) with his penis;

    Therefore women cannot rape men. So no, I don't see the failure in my logic, do you?
    Offline

    2
    ReputationRep:
    The victim blaming mentality of some of these replies is really scary

    To the OP, what happened to you was a sexual assault, and by the sounds of it quite possibly rape. Ignore the negative posts, you are NOT the person in the wrong. The person in the wrong is the person who chose to sexually assault you. I would recommend speaking to your boyfriend, or perhaps a parent or close friend who you know well, and seeking help. Please don't listen to the people on here who are blaming you for what happened, they clearly have no concept of the mental trauma that can be created by sexual assault nor of how detrimental victim-blaming talk is to real victims.

    Very best of luck to you :hugs:
    Offline

    2
    There's a few things here..

    Honestly, i'd say you were sexually assaulted in the sense that you made it clear you wanted nothing to happen, yet he finished off in your mouth. So whether or not you "eventually" liked that doesn't excuse the fact that he's a massive sh*t who went against your will in the first place.

    As for cheating.. I think that depends on how you felt about his actions at the end. I mean- initially you didn't want to cheat, just make your boyfriend angry by sleeping in that ****'s bed. However, if you didn't push him out due to confusion etc, i don't think you cheated.

    If you knew he was rolling on top of you and you were okay with it at the moment, you've obviously cheated. Although you did know he was masturbating right beside you in bed.. So that kind of implies that you were okay with it

    I think you need to clarify the situation in your own head, punch the sh*thead who raped you and explain everything to your boyfriend. He deserves an explanation
    Offline

    16
    ReputationRep:
    Having someone **** in your mouth when you are very drunk and pretty much asleep is more sexual assault than cheating.

    You said no and gave no consent. Doing nothing is not consent.
    You need to talk to this guy and make him realise what he did was incredibly wrong (if you don't feel to traumatised)
    Its not ok to pull that ****!

    Id tell your bf, that sounds like a horrible experience.
 
 
 
Reply
Submit reply
TSR Support Team

We have a brilliant team of more than 60 Support Team members looking after discussions on The Student Room, helping to make it a fun, safe and useful place to hang out.

Updated: March 24, 2013
Poll
Which pet is the best?

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Quick reply
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.