In light of Aiken - define this scenario

[Anonymous]

Date rape or Drunk yet consensual sex


Man and woman out bar-hopping, end up at woman's home quite drunk. Fooling around on the couch, man convinces woman to go to her bedroom rather than staying on the couch.

Once in bed he begins to take her clothes off. She says no, more than once, but otherwise doesn't fight or try to stop him. They have sex.

She said no, yet didn't forcibly stop intercourse from happening. Was she consenting by not being forceful or trying to escape, despite having said no? She was quite intoxicated, therefore does this add credence to either her consent by letting him in bed or lack thereof because she was too drunk to make a rational choice?

If this was you or your best friend or daughter, what would you do the next day? Allege date rape, or consider it a drunk one night stand?
Is date rape "legitimate rape", in the words of the esteemed Mr. Aiken? (kidding on that last question)

[Anonymous]

Isn't it rape because you can't give real consent if drunk? So guy is in trouble. But I have heard that it will become a he said, she said thing in court.

[Anonymous]

I agree it's rape. But I personally wouldn't report it, knowing no one would believe me.

[Anonymous]

I think the republican "logic" goes this way. If she was raped, her body would chemically or reacted in a way to stop the sperm. So, if she gets pregnant, she was not raped because her body would have stopped it from happening. I have not heard the "republican logic" on date rape.

[Anonymous]

I'm sure it's an unpopular belief, but I lean more towards unfortunate drunken one night stand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I'm sure it's an unpopular belief, but I lean more towards unfortunate drunken one night stand.

And I think Aiken is a tool.

[Anonymous]

SHE SAID NO!!!!! There shouldn't be a question. NO MEANS NO. Nothing else matters.

[Anonymous]

She said no. It's rape. Also, you can't consent if you're drunk.

[Anonymous]

Also, it's Akin.

[Anonymous]

Does nobody remember being told as a teen/young adult that you should never fight back against your rapist because you will have a greater chance of getting hurt/killed if you do?

If I am remembering my crim law classes correctly, I don't think there is a mens rea for rape, which says a lot, and there isn't a duty to fight back or try to retreat. It's simply penetration without consent. Is this right, lawyers?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Does nobody remember being told as a teen/young adult that you should never fight back against your rapist because you will have a greater chance of getting hurt/killed if you do?

If I am remembering my crim law classes correctly, I don't think there is a mens rea for rape, which says a lot, and there isn't a duty to fight back or try to retreat. It's simply penetration without consent. Is this right, lawyers?

I think you're right. Sexual assault laws vary by state though.

[Anonymous]

No means no.

[Anonymous]

I'm teaching my son that no means no, regardless of how far they've already gone.

No means no. Inability to consent due to age or disability (e.g. Intoxication) also means no. Why is this so hard for some people to understand?

[Anonymous]

I suppose it's hard to understand because a certain percentage of men want to be able to have sex via rape during dates and get away with it.

It's beyond sickening how often men do get away with rape.