My stance on rape

temptotalk

Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Posts
1,952
Media
0
Likes
1,084
Points
123
Location
Thirdlegdia
Gender
Male
Actually- that is what the LAW says about EVERY CRIME.
That if you are unaware that you are committing a crime, then you can not be found 'guilty'. Look it up.


And I am not the one mouthing platitudes. You are. Saying that SOME people who do stupid, drunken, sexually suggestive things can not be held responsible for their actions... but that OTHERS who stupidly, drunkenly Respond to their stupid sexually suggestive actions are defacto CRIMINALS is a platitude that exculpates ONLY the stupidity of anyone who feels that something happened that they wish hadn't.

My story of the drunk trying to get my dick out of my pants is absolutely analogous because the ONLY difference between that scenario, and the OPs is that I was sober enough to reject her advances. Had I been semi-conscious with rum, sprawled on the same couch, and been unable to cogently reject her, she might well have gotten it out, mistaken my incoherent moaning for excitement and and wrapped her mouth around it, and I might have only then mustered the awareness to shove her off of me.

But you miss the point of the story- it was that YOUR argument, and the PC view being forwarded is that her actions constituted sexual assault. And that can CERTAINLY be argued. you CAN choose to form a cultural expectation that states EVERY unwanted physical contact or even verbal suggestion IS sexual assault... and incarcerate people for it.
But take that reasoning further... to its logical extreme, and the OP could be accused by his host of sexual assault for even suggesting he stay the night and then taking off his pants.

that is, the only criteria YOU impose to define a crime is the "offense" taken by one party. You allow no other consideration to impinge upon the accusation. And, sorry, but you have no constitutional right to live your life unoffended.

here's evidence in counter to that perspective:
They did a study of women being sexually harassed in the workplace- they trained several actors to pose as co-workers and deliver the exact same kind of ambiguous come-ons in the exact same inflection. And they dressed some of these actors as maintenance workers, some as office workers, and some as executives. Some of the actors were handsome, others were less so.

And then the had the actors swap costumes and try it all again.

And the results were telling. Women's responses ranged from finding the approach "Offensive" or even "sexually assaultive".... all the way to finding the approach "charming" and "enagaging"- but how acceptable they found the encounters correlated perfectly with the perceived affluence or attractiveness of the "co-worker".
That is, the exact same lines, delivered the exact same way, by the exact same actor, were seen as threatening if he was dressed as a maintenance worker, offensive or in poor taste if he was dressed as an office guy, and downright charming if he was dressed as an affluent executive. And when delivered by handsome men, women consistently found the advance to be more acceptable than when delivered by unattractive men.

that is, the more 'eligible' the guy, the more open women were to interpreting the exact same advance in a positive, rather than a negative light.
( this is not an indictment of women... men do exactly the same thing in being more positively responsive to what they perceive to be higher value potential mates )


Thus, the same behavior from the same persons can be either seen as offensive, or engaging, depending entirely upon context and reciprocated interest.

Ergo- in potentially sexual situations, it becomes even more critical to realize that drunk people have impaired perceptions. AND impaired ability to recognize their own conduct as signaling reciprocated interest.



Sex is NOT inherently criminal. It NOT robbery. People NEVER give other people the "impression" that they might be interested in being robbed.

Yet EVERY TIME two people 'legally' fuck, its because they gave each other the impression that they might be interested in fucking.

In fact, a rather large portion of people's time, activity and attention is absolutely devoted to social situations wherein they can have the opportunity to find people who they are interested in fucking, and who might be interested in fucking them back.

But we do not live in a world where the potentially receptive partner holds up a sign saying "open to being fucked".
We live in a world full of shy people afraid of being rejected, who might have to see these other people in other social situations and wish to retain some dignity... and so LOTS of interest in fucking gets expressed in ways that can be "plausibly denied". That is, so subtlely that they can deny even having signaled interest.

Add to this that drinking is used by BOTH sexes as both a means to lessen their own inhibitions and fears- AND as a potential "excuse" for their conduct if they should get rejected, or behave unacceptably; an excuse that everyone accepts and understands because they likely do the same.

You are ignoring the entire landscape of courting and sexuality as it REALLY is.




And You can stop pretending that the OP was actually merely 'asleep'. His description is clear- he was too drunk to even walk any distance. That implies he was passed out, not merely sleeping... and I have been around way too many passed out drunks to accept that he was incapable of drunkenly responding to touch in his semi-conscious state.

He asked to stay over. The Host might have seen that as expressed interest. The Host CHECKED if it might be interest by suggesting they could share his bed, and the OP agreed. Unsolicited, the OP took off his clothes, which was yet another signal to a drunk guy who might have thought the OP was making shy excuses to get in bed with him.


Your perspective makes EVERY mere MISUNDERSTANDING a crime. Throwing what might well have been nothing but a lonely guy who had every reason to think the OP was interested and receptive, into the same cells as murderers, muggers, gang thugs, and the kind of men who tie and torture a woman while savaging her sexually.


But that is not the core fault in your reasoning. The real fault is that you excuse the mistaken actions of one person who is drunk, but refuse to offer the same consideration to the other, over something pretty much EVERY human being actually does crave and actually does seek, amid all kinds of mixed messaging and ambiguous signaling.

I would utterly agree with your take if the Primary way sex happened was when the receptive partner signed a contract agreeing to have sex.
Hell, I would agree with you if even 10% of the times I myself have had sex it was discussed ahead of time and cogently agreed to by both parties before any physical contact occurred.

But it doesn't happen that way. Its a nuanced and complex dance is what it is. And when both parties are plastered, it becomes awkward, uncoordinated, and bumbling, but it still happens and drunken hook-ups are still a huge percentage of the sex that occurs.


And sorry if it upsets you that I am willing to defend my arguments. I am. I think it is becoming vitally important to vocally and rationally oppose the kind of ridiculous pollyanalyzing that makes university students imagine that they should not have to so much as HEAR ideas or words that they find offensive. Or that pretends that sexual signaling is perfectly clear at all times.

Whether you find something offensive is NOT justification for labeling it criminal. Its just another form of popular moralizing scold. No different than putting a scarlet letter on women others feel is too forward, what we now-a-days call Slut Shaming.

There can be NO rational 'rules' that always apply the same to human conduct because our conduct and interactions are myriad and no one is ever perfectly understood.
This is WHY zero tolerance, mandatory minimum sentencing, and 3 strikes laws are STUPID.

They remove from justice the entire concept of JUDGEMENT.

You Agree the OP showed poor judgement, But you hold the Host entirely responsible for His poor judgment to the point of criminality, and do not hold the OP responsible for his at all. You only shake your finger at the OP, yet you shake Handcuffs at his Host.
Yet- if you want to be Just, the Degree to which you hold the OP responsible for his own poor judgement MUST be the degree to which you relieve the Host of responsibility for his poor judgement.

The reason we have a Judge in a courtroom is so that the technicalities of illegality can be informed by the circumstances specific to each event that might allow better understanding of the people involved and whether anyone actually meant to harm anyone else.

I like how you took one single solitary instance. On something so important as rape...and used it to generalize large swathes of people with it.

Actually- that is what the LAW says about EVERY CRIME.
That if you are unaware that you are committing a crime, then you can not be found 'guilty'. Look it up.

I was just like "Dude, what the fuck??" and he replied "come on, man, you were moaning, so you enjoyed it".

PC view huh? So is that what you think all of this is about? Being PC?
 

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
Actually- that is what the LAW says about EVERY CRIME.
That if you are unaware that you are committing a crime, then you can not be found 'guilty'. Look it up.

Sorry, Phil, but that's not what statutes nor common law states.

The essence of which is that if you are unable to understand, not if you are unaware.

I like your defense of your position, but that specific statement is off a bit.
 

Hatt_101

Superior Member
Verified
Gold
Joined
Sep 3, 2010
Posts
4,452
Media
72
Likes
8,277
Points
393
Location
Ontario (Canada)
Verification
View
Sexuality
100% Straight, 0% Gay
Gender
Male
Phil are you literally trying to say that if I don't know that I'm committing a crime I can't be convicted of it??

The op never questioned whether or not it was rape as in his recent post he's says that it was.

If a person say was wearing a blindfold and randomly started swinging their fists and hit someone repeatedly, that they would not be convicted of assault because the were blindfolded and therefore didn't know they would hit someone? Because that's just ridiculous
 

temptotalk

Legendary Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2015
Posts
1,952
Media
0
Likes
1,084
Points
123
Location
Thirdlegdia
Gender
Male
About Victims
  • 44% of victims are under age 18
  • 80% are under age 30
Learn more victim statistics

Sexual Assault Numbers
  • Every 107 seconds, another sexual assault occurs
  • There is an average of 293,000 instances (victims age 12 or older) of sexual assault each year
Read more sexual assault numbers

Reporting to Police
  • 68% of sexual assaults are not reported to the police
  • 98% of rapists will never spend a day in jail
Learn more reporting statistics

About Rapists
  • Approximately 4/5 of assaults are committed by someone known to the victim
  • 47% of rapists are a friend or acquaintance
Learn more statistics about rapists

Rape statistics

Need help?
Call 800.656.HOPE (4673) to be connected with a trained staff member from a sexual assault service provider in your area.

How does it work?
When you call 800.656.HOPE (4673), you’ll be routed to a local RAINN affiliate organization based on the first six digits of your phone number. Cell phone callers have the option to enter the zip code of their current location to more accurately locate the nearest sexual assault service provider.

How can the hotline help me?
Calling the National Sexual Assault Hotline gives you access to a range of free services including:

  • Confidential, judgment-free support from a trained staff member
  • Support finding a local health facility that is trained to care for survivors of sexual assault and offers services like sexual assault forensic exams
  • Someone to help you talk through what happened
  • Local resources that can assist with your next steps toward healing and recovery
  • Referrals for long term support in your area
  • Information about the laws in your area
  • Basic information about medical concerns
Is it confidential?
The National Sexual Assault Hotline is a safe, confidential service. When you call the hotline, only the first six numbers of the phone number are used to route the call, and your complete phone number is never stored in our system. Most states do have laws that require local staff to contact authorities in certain situations, like if there is a child or vulnerable adult who is in danger.

While almost all callers are connected directly to a staff member or volunteer at a local sexual assault service provider, a handful of providers use an answering service after daytime business hours. This service helps manage the flow of calls. If all staff members are busy, you may choose to leave a phone number with the answering service. In this case, the number will be confidential and will be given directly to the organization’s staff member for a callback. If you reach an answering service, you can try calling back after some time has passed, or you can choose to call during regular business hours when more staff members are available. You can also access 24/7 help online by visiting online.rainn.org.

Who are the sexual assault service providers?
Sexual assault service providers are organizations or agencies dedicated to supporting survivors of sexual assault. The providers who answer calls placed to the hotline are known as RAINN affiliates. To be part of the National Sexual Assault Hotline, affiliates must agree to uphold RAINN’s confidentiality standards. That means:

  • Never releasing records or information about the call without the consent of the caller, except when obligated by law
  • Only making reports to the police or other agencies when the caller consents, unless obligated by law
  • Agreeing to RAINN’s non-discrimination policy
To learn more about how a provider can become an affiliate of the National Sexual Assault Hotline, visit the Sexual Assault Service Provider information page or emailcandicel@rainn.org. Volunteer opportunities for the National Sexual Assault Hotline are coordinated through these local providers. Search for volunteer opportunities near you.

How is the National Sexual Assault Hotline created?
The National Sexual Assault Hotline was the nation’s first decentralized hotline, connecting those in need with help in their local communities. It’s made up of a network of independent sexual assault service providers, vetted by RAINN, who answer calls to a single, nationwide hotline number. Since it was first created in 1994, the National Sexual Assault Hotline (800.656.HOPE and online.rainn.org) has helped over 2 million people impacted by sexual violence.

Before the telephone hotline was created, there was no central place where survivors could get help. Local sexual assault services providers were well equipped to handle support services, but the lack of a national hotline meant the issue did not receive as much attention as it should. In response, RAINN developed a unique national hotline system to combine all the advantages of a national organization with all the abilities and expertise of local programs. One nationwide hotline number makes it easier for survivors to be connected with the help they deserve.

Anyone impacted by sexual assault, whether it happened to you or someone you care about, can find support on the National Sexual Assault Hotline. You can also visitonline.rainn.org to receive support via confidential online chat.
 
D

deleted924715

Guest
Actually- that is what the LAW says about EVERY CRIME.
That if you are unaware that you are committing a crime, then you can not be found 'guilty'. Look it up.

Didn't read the rest because you have zero credibility at this point, but this is incorrect, at least where I'm from. Strict liability crimes? Look it up.

Voluntary Intoxication (a legal term) cannot be used as a defence to a crime of basic intent (a crime where recklessness will suffice - of which rape is one) regardless of whether or not you are unaware, because it is a self induced state. The defence of Automatism does not apply to states induced by alchohol or drugs.

So no. The LAW doesn't say that about EVERY CRIME.
 

ronin001

Mythical Member
Gold
Platinum Gold
Cammer
Joined
May 16, 2009
Posts
10,348
Media
55
Likes
47,196
Points
618
Location
New York (United States)
Sexuality
99% Straight, 1% Gay
Gender
Male
The committing of an possibly illegal action, either by Ignorance; or mistake can still get you arrested, ticketed and tried. Phil, what you are saying is not technically true as to the letter of the letter of the law.

Any person can use the Defense of he/she did not know they were breaking of a law. But it is up to the Law enforcement , the D.A. Judge and or jury to believe or take pity on you. In a case like this, should the OP have pressed charges the older fat gent would have been booked and arraigned. This before his plea of Not Guilty

The defense of being drunk, has many limitations as well, you get drunk and run someone down, can you say hey I was drunk, not my fault ? You are drunk and decide to clean your guns, they go off and kill / injure someone, you can not say not my fault i was drunk ? You get drunk and sleep with someone / a woman at a party; but you are married and your wife finds out. She sues you for divorce, you say hey I was drunk. trust me it will not help.

The last line about the Judges responsibility is incorrect, we are not talking about traffic court here but an actual charge presented by the People of the locality. I always thought it was the District Attorney, who reviewed a pending case for content and the applied the laws of that municipality to the case. It is the DA, who presents the level of the charges to the court; or offers a plea as to avoid a full trial. All the Judge does is start the trail, keep order, charge the jury and administer sentence if found guilty

You say that people drink with the express reason as to lower their inhibitions, this can be correct. However this was not a date between 2 people or a club where you go to meet and have fun it was a night out with friends. So the OP was not drinking as to lower his sexual inhibitions; but to be social. Generally when 2 people have sex , they lay down together or something like that. The OP states he was intoxicated and was shown a place to lay down, he then proceeded to go to sleep . The host left and after a while returned, to have sex with the OP. How could there have consent if one person was in bed and already passed out.

There were no charges pressed, however even the most inexperienced prosecutor could have probably gotten a conviction with the evidence as stated, had this gone through he system
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,792
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
Didn't read the rest because you have zero credibility at this point, but this is incorrect, at least where I'm from. Strict liability crimes? Look it up.

Voluntary Intoxication (a legal term) cannot be used as a defence to a crime of basic intent (a crime where recklessness will suffice - of which rape is one) regardless of whether or not you are unaware, because it is a self induced state. The defence of Automatism does not apply to states induced by alchohol or drugs.

So no. The LAW doesn't say that about EVERY CRIME.
It still is a mitigating factor in the severity of the offense, or the severity of the punishment. ( except of core, where judgment has been diaallowed by the idiocy of mandatory sentencing )
 

Phil Ayesho

Superior Member
Joined
Feb 26, 2008
Posts
6,189
Media
0
Likes
2,792
Points
333
Location
San Diego
Sexuality
69% Straight, 31% Gay
Gender
Male
And just to be clear to folks around here about my actual stance.
THIS is how I responded to someone posting a similar story as an example of something "HOT"
Being Tied up and Shaved
I cautioned that their "hot scene" was perilously close to rape. And yet, as I consistently do, advised that folks show some intelligent responsibility for the shit they get into by their own doing.


You folks are still beating the drum of absolutism. That its wrong because you SAY its wrong and not addressing the actual ambiguity of the actual scenario presented.

As I stated, It MIGHT have been a case of his host taking criminal liberties. But the OPs actions introduce the possibility that the OP was too impaired to know how he may have responded to advances... and the host too impaired to have accurately assessed his response as being delirium rather than excitement.

And sorry... but I am not saying that being drunk when you rape someone is a defense.
And I did not say that being drunk means you can't be found guilty of a crime... I said it is a mitigating factor in forming intent.
Sure, you can be convicted of drunk driving, because the statute forbids Driving Drunk. But its almost unheard of for a drunk driver who kills someone with their car to be found guilty of first degree murder, because being impaired as a driver is NOT the same as forming the intent to kill. ) But a drunk getting into a car is clearly INTENDING to drive.
But can you arrest a drunk sleeping in his car for drunk driving? can you assume he intended to drive but passed out before he could get it going?


I am saying that- in the scenario presented, YOUR being drunk and THEIR being drunk means that you can not reliably know what actually transpired in your inebriated state, and therefore can not always clearly establish Intent on the part of the host to take advantage. If you were drugged... then that is a clear indicator of calculated intent on the part of the offender.


Here's the crux of everyone's outrage at me.
Let's just pretend we can look into the mind of the Host and suppose for the sake of argument that the Host sincerely DID think the OP was into him and responding to him positively...

Is he still a rapist in your eyes?

Or does his honest intention and perceptions of what he was doing count at all in whether he was guilty?

If a person who mistakenly, but honestly, thought he was invited, and encouraged, is still guilty of rape just because it involved genitals, ... then the person who asks a co-worker out is always a sexual harasser. The person who got the wrong change at the cash register is always a thief. And the guest who spills the wine you served them on your carpet is always a vandal.

Or, are all those things situationally mitigated... but not the sex thing BECAUSE it involves sex? Because sex is somehow hugely different than every other thing we understand to be a potentially innocent error?
 
Last edited:
D

deleted924715

Guest
It still is a mitigating factor in the severity of the offense, or the severity of the punishment. ( except of core, where judgment has been diaallowed by the idiocy of mandatory sentencing )

Actually, in the UK it is often seen as an aggravating factor rather than a mitigating factor. A defendant can attempt to rely on their intoxication if the crime is one of specific intent... subject to the caveat that a drunken intent is still intent. However, rape is a crime of basic intent and so the law (in the UK) does not support your stance in terms of voluntary intoxication. It just doesn't. The legal system would be utterly unworkable if it did.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ronin001

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
But its almost unheard of for a drunk driver who kills someone with their car to be found guilty of first degree murder, because being impaired as a driver is NOT the same as forming the intent to kill. ) But a drunk getting into a car is clearly INTENDING to drive.

While I agree with part of this hypothetical, in general there is a disconnect.

The reason it is 'almost unheard of for a drunk driver who kills with their car to be found guilty of first degree murder' is not because of the drunkenness or their intent to kill, but rather because the statues defining 'first degree murder' haven't been met.

First degree murder, at least in this jurisdiction, is defined as (a) unlawful killing of a human being; AND; either (b) premeditation to effect the death of the person killed; OR (c) when committed by someone doing, or attempting to do, a list of activities such as robbery, trafficking in drugs, etc...

The fact that they are drunken does not factor into the definition. A person who plans to kill someone with their car (premeditation); gets drunk; and then gets into their car (intent to carry out the plan) and kills that person (unlawful killing) as planned is still guilt of first degree murder. The "gets drunk" part is not relevant to the definition.


However, I certainly understand and agree with your overarching theme, on the original post, which is there is a question of fact as to whether or not the Host perceived consent. And whether or not the Victim, before hand, implied consent. In most rape cases it does boil down to that question.
 
  • Like
Reactions: ronin001

AlteredEgo

Mythical Member
Joined
Jan 12, 2006
Posts
19,175
Media
37
Likes
26,254
Points
368
Location
Hello (Sud-Ouest, Burkina Faso)
Sexuality
No Response
But can you arrest a drunk sleeping in his car for drunk driving? can you assume he intended to drive but passed out before he could get it going?
It happens if the person falls asleep in the front. To avoid this, he or she must sleep in the back.
s he still a rapist in your eyes?

Or does his honest intention and perceptions of what he was doing count at all in whether he was guilty?
Sleep is sleep. He's guilty because the dude was asleep or unconscious.

Or, are all those things situationally mitigated... but not the sex thing BECAUSE it involves sex?
No. The sex thing, in this particular case, is not mitigated because of sleep or unconsciousness. If they were in a long-term relationship, this might be overcome if he genuinely believed he had an ongoing understanding of consent, like some couples do.
 

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
No. The sex thing, in this particular case, is not mitigated because of sleep or unconsciousness. If they were in a long-term relationship, this might be overcome if he genuinely believed he had an ongoing understanding of consent, like some couples do.

It is impossible to give or "imply" consent when you are unconscious. That is not "absolutism", it's just common sense.

Hypothetically, it is possible to consent before going to sleep... "Baby, I'm going to sleep, why don't you wake me up with that cock of yours. I love it when you fuck me while I'm asleep." That wasn't the case here, but in this hypothetical, consent was given. Now factor in that the early consent was given while drunk and the clarity becomes much less clear.

The totality of the situation must be looked at to see whether consent was informed, given, implied, or even withdrawn.

To say - "he was asleep and therefore couldn't give any consent" is too narrow.
To say - "he was drunk and couldn't give informed consent" is much easier.
To say - "he was drunk and accepted a proposition to sleep in his host's bed equates to implied consent" that's doubtful.
To say - "both he and the host were drunk, both knew that the host had the hots for him, he accepted a proposition to sleep in his host's bed, stripped naked, slept on top of the covers ass-up was implied consent" that's debatable.

Consent is not as cut and dry as some people are making it.
 
3

328982

Guest
Hypothetically, it is possible to consent before going to sleep... "Baby, I'm going to sleep, why don't you wake me up with that cock of yours. I love it when you fuck me while I'm asleep." That wasn't the case here, but in this hypothetical, consent was given. Now factor in that the early consent was given while drunk and the clarity becomes much less clear.

The totality of the situation must be looked at to see whether consent was informed, given, implied, or even withdrawn.

To say - "he was asleep and therefore couldn't give any consent" is too narrow.
To say - "he was drunk and couldn't give informed consent" is much easier.
To say - "he was drunk and accepted a proposition to sleep in his host's bed equates to implied consent" that's doubtful.
To say - "both he and the host were drunk, both knew that the host had the hots for him, he accepted a proposition to sleep in his host's bed, stripped naked, slept on top of the covers ass-up was implied consent" that's debatable.

Consent is not as cut and dry as some people are making it.
In this case, he was drunk AND asleep and no prior consent had been given. How is that not cut and dried? Sticking to this case rather than hypothesizing about other scenarios...
 

KennF

Legendary Member
Joined
May 3, 2010
Posts
2,185
Media
9
Likes
1,964
Points
258
Location
Florida (United States)
Sexuality
100% Gay, 0% Straight
Gender
Male
In this case, he was drunk AND asleep and no prior consent had been given. How is that not cut and dried? Sticking to this case rather than hypothesizing about other scenarios...

I didn't say whether it was "cut and dried". I was pointing out that the two sides of the argument are talking about the same issue. "When does consent exist?" Today's society does not make it so clear, since as Phil said, people don't sign contracts saying "I consent to you fucking me."

Phil is arguing that the 'victim' bears some level of responsibility for setting the stage and the events leading up to the event. And I understand his point of view. It is the denial of this that causes the most long-term damage.

Others are arguing that consent is absolute and that the host is solely responsible for making sure consent is informed and granted. And I understand that perspective, as well.

In this case, the OP could have been clearer. While he shouldn't have put himself in that position, the host shouldn't have acted.

Now, back on topic...

Now, the OP really was discussing the way that rape changes a person. That change is really about your own actions. It is damned easy to blame someone else for your situation, but at some point you need to accept your own actions and forgive yourself. Otherwise, you always remain a victim.

I am speaking from personal experience. Until I accepted MY part in my being raped and forgave myself, I was damaged. Now I look back and say, I was an idiot for putting myself in that situation and not speaking/acting to prevent it. I had it in my power to prevent it many times before the rape. I didn't. I was stupid. I forgive myself. I move on.

The fucking part of rape was the smallest part of it. The fear, potential disease, (I suppose the pregnancy for women), and the feeling of violation and loss of control... those were the hard part of rape.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Alem0909

janned

Experimental Member
Joined
Dec 12, 2014
Posts
6
Media
0
Likes
5
Points
38
Location
Philippines
Sexuality
90% Gay, 10% Straight
You had non consensual sex. That's rape. The fact that you weren't overly traumatized by it is to your credit. Rape invariably is violent, and has very little to do with sex. Your fat friend should be put in prison where he belongs, and have the pleasure of becoming Big Louis's "best friend." I just hope you didn't come out of this with a life threatening disease. Death from rape induced HIV is no different from getting a bullet in your head during the act. If you can get on with your life without emotional counseling, great. If this blog serves that purpose,

how about my in my case? i didn't give him a consent to do such thing to me, but then, in the process of doing i kinda like it.. here is my story;

i've been raped when i was about 13, it happened in a public gym or like a warehouse. i was sleeping together with a lot of guys, when suddenly a guy sleep besides me. Later on he's spooning me, then humping. To be honest the humping turns me on. there's a feeling i can't explain in which i want to have more "kind of a feeling", due to it, i push back my butt to his dick, and i think that signals him that its ok with me. so he did undress my short and brief, just below my butt. I guess he remove his t-shirt to cover our connected bodies. (my butt and his cock). I don't know if he pull down his pants all the way down, for i am facing opposite to him, but i guess it's not all the way down for there are a lot of people sleeping around us. then later on i felt his penis teasing my hole. this teasing happened for i think about 10 or 15 mins and it made me want more. so i still push back my butt to him. then suddenly i felt his penis getting inside me. and OHHH IT HURTS, OH SO BAD. i don't know how big or small his cock, cuz i hav'nt seen him totally nude. with that i froze. i cant shout or scream cuz there are a lot of people around us who is sleeping. around as in, not even more than 2 meters away from us. he keeps on fucking me, neglecting my frozen body. but later on as minutes passby, i started to like it and the pain change to a good feeling, i cant explain. and when he fucks me hard, i tell you that there's really that good feeling i want to last. but suddenly he cums, and the fucking stops. i am dismayed that he did'nt last long. so i stand up, look at him, giving a stern look. a look that says (wtf hae you done? but deep inside me i kinda like it.) Tomorrow morning, i felt like i am sick, or not feeling really well, maybe bcuz of the fucking. up until now, i did'nt know how big his dick, i heard he's small. but i can't say how thick or long his dick is, for i hav'nt seen it. all i can say is that it hurts at first,
BTW he's about 15 yrs. older than me. and that was my only sex experience until now. i know to myself that i am gay, for i am already attracted with gudlooking guys when i was young. but im not out, until today. but nowadays im already having a fetish of fantasy rape or being rough fucked with a dominant guy. and i want to try it with a huge white dick.
 

Walktheplank

Loved Member
Joined
Jun 30, 2015
Posts
299
Media
2
Likes
647
Points
163
Location
Somewhere in the US
Gender
Male
Hi everyone.

for some reason this week's topic has been gender equality in my office. The topic of rape jumped in and I had the urge to contribute with my opinion and experience but was too shy to do so.

I want to start with my story. This happened about two years ago. I used to hang out with guys who were way older than me (I was 22 and they were in their late 30's or early 40's). It was a nice gang and we liked drinking a lot. One of my friend's friend, a particularly older guy, early fifties and kind of overweight, invited us over to his place for some drinks. Although he wasn't part of the group I always thought he was very funny. Everything went as usual, we got there, started drinking and I loved the fact he had a minifridge full of beer cans. I can drink beer all night long and be the happiest man alive. The host was like that as well. It was fun and all but around three in the morning I was completely wasted. My ex lived two blocks away from this guys apartment and I was kind of freaked out about meeting him on the street. I could barely walk anymore (they say I walk like an astronaut when I'm drunk), so I told the host I'd rather stay the night and leave the next morning. He said it was OK, his bed was large enough and he showed me his room and left to keep drinking with the rest of the gang. I took off my pants and went to bed wearing boxer-briefs and a t-shirt and fell asleep instantly. I don't know how much time had passed but I woke up feeling weird. I felt very very cold and as consciousness came back I noticed I was completely naked and the fat older guy (the host) was balls deep inside me. At first I was kind of freaked out. I was laying on my belly and turned around aggressively and pushed him away. He was motionless. I quickly dressed up while shouting at him. I was just like "Dude, what the fuck??" and he replied "come on, man, you were moaning, so you enjoyed it". I remember no moans. I felt disgusting. The fact that my ass was all wet from lube (or spit or whatever) made me feel more uncomfortable. I walked out of the apartment and all I could think about was that I didn't want to meet my ex on the street (it was about 7am already). I also felt bad because I kind of liked the idea that the last guy to fuck me was my ex. I was also worried since the fat guy wasn't wearing a condom.

So, that's my rape story.

Back to the office subject, the girls were talking about how life is never the same afterwards, and how you're forever changed after rape. They talked about death sentence or life imprisonment for rapists. The talked about the psychological scars on the victims and stuff.

I don't agree with them at all.

Although I didn't enjoy my experience at all and find it disgusting, I fell it was just an uncomfortable chapter in my life. It's been two years and I feel just the same: I enjoy life and I don't believe that experience has left any kind of scar in me. I don't believe it ever did or it ever will do. I went back with my ex, of course it failed and now I'm dating someone else.
About the fat guy, yeah, he did wrong and he never apologized, but about five months after the incident we met again at another party and we talked about random subjects and that was it. I laughed, we discussed about how awful his taste in music is, and period. I hanged out with him a couple of times afterwards and it was OK. He's got a very handsome boyfriend now (he's around my age) and they seem very happy. I don't believe he's an evil person, or a sick sociopath or a danger to society at all. I believe he's a complete moron who made a mistake.

I know my point of view is very unpopular but I just felt like sharing it with someone since I couldn't dare to state in my office "Hey, I was raped once and it 's fine!". But that's exactly how I felt. I think I felt as bas as getting robbed. I felt bad at the precise moment it happened and then not anymore. I did share this story with one of my friends once. He told me he thought I kind of provoked it since I was drinking at a gay party and fell asleep on his bed while on my underwear. I didn't like that comment at all and think it's wrong. But such is life.

Thanks for reading.
really dude....you don't speak for everyone! I was sexually molested as a child and it did affect me, but I understand that other victims have different reactions to trauma and speaking about my experience I have to be careful to not diminish the experiences of others. You don't speak for every one