25 years old and deep in debt

[garbon]

Garbo, I'm glad you don't feel victimized, but how is what you've described not a sexual assault?  As you said - they did sexual acts with you you didn't want.  It's the very definition of sexual assault.

Those men should have faced criminal penalties so they didn't sexually assault more people in the future.   

But that's what strikes me as odd. 1) by labeling them sexual assault, I'm actually being told that I should feel victimized as I was a victim (unless sexual assault is a victimless crime). That seems not positive for one's psyche. 2) Does either individual sound like someone who is at high risk of actually harming someone? I could have taken both men and in case of scenario 1, definitely could have put a stop to it if I tried hard enough but it was easier to just let him do his quick little thing and be done with it.  I guess scenario 2 is a bit more complicated as I could really only have prevented it by going home that night and did in fact put a stop to it when I awoke.

I guess I'm not sure where the line is.  If I'm having sex with someone and they decide to come on my chest or face when I was like no, thanks, did they just assault me? How about someone who didn't give you notice they were coming when you were sucking them off with the added bit that you said you don't like to swallow?  Is sexual assault just a catch-all for things that happened during sex that you didn't like?

[merithyn]

I don't see the usefulness in describing those as sexual assault/rape (which previously Languish had decided example 2 was not rape).  I certainly learned from both what I'm wiling to put up with and also about the effects of alcohol on decision making but saying I was sexually assaulted adds a whole ominous tone to those encounters that I didn't feel then or now.  Otherwise, one is saying objectively that in both cases those men should have faced criminal penalties.  I don't see why that's true.

I wonder if you would still feel the same if you had been penetrated. I honestly don't know if that's a factor or not because I only have one perspective on the situation.

Oddly, even given my personal experiences, were I in your shoes, I probably wouldn't have reported them, either. I wouldn't have seen them again and I would have warned friends about them, but I most likely wouldn't have reported them. Like you, I'd be irritated and I'd feel like I learned a lesson, but yeah, not likely to ruin their lives over the situations as explained.

[Jacob]

It's almost as if context makes a difference.

Indeed.  But even when you are dating and have just met somebody somebody might slip up and go too far.  The other person says 'um...so ma'am/sir' and that person stops.  I don't think that qualifies to me.

But this definition makes no requirement for context.

Which is why it's important to educate people so they're less likely to slip up and go too far.

Look, most of us have been in marginal situations regarding consent. Some of us have probably made decisions which in retrospect were the wrong ones; it can be difficult when we're raised to believe we're the ones supposed to be in charge.  That doesn't necessarily make anyone a monster, but I think it's worth making clear that those wrong decisions were in fact wrong and to avoid situations where the context is less than crystal clear.

My concern is much less about the legal code and much more about the attitude we project to our peers and how we educate our sons and daughters.

[Malthus]

I don't know what to tell you MIM. 

Malthus will yell at me for using anecdotes, but I have prosecuted a few dozen rape cases.  I can think of precisely two where the victim yelled, screamed and ran out of the house.

For whatever reason - the impairing effects of alcohol or drugs, the sheer shock and surprise at what is happening, the sense of shame and embarassment - Meri's reaction seems quite typical.

Not at all. Anecdotes have their place, it is just they are not very useful for topics like "what is the overall incidence of sexual assault among the population (or some segment of it, like college students)?".  The reason: everyone is likely to take their personal experiences as reasonably typical.

Don't worry, I will not yell at you for describing your trial experiences. 

As a matter of fact, my own wife was "sexually assaulted" nearly in front of me - she was groped by a drunk asshole one halloween while we were waiting for a night bus. Her immediate response was to punch the guy in the face, knocking him into the arms of his friends - who dragged him off, backwards. (I only witnessed this last part - I went to look at the schedule, heard the smack of her fist connecting with his face, turned around to see him being dragged off howling, with a bloody nose). I was going to run after the guy and pound him some more, and my friends with me (there were about eight of us waiting for the bus) but she stopped me. Probably for the best. 

She also relates an extremely frightening incident that happened when she was working in Kiev. She was chased down the street at night by a big stranger, and foolishly ran into a deserted building to lose him - fortunately she did (though he followed her in there!). Later, she saw the same guy on the bus, and let him have it - basically yelled in his face that he was a wannabe rapist asshole (he got off the bus). 

[Barrister]

Garbo, I'm glad you don't feel victimized, but how is what you've described not a sexual assault?  As you said - they did sexual acts with you you didn't want.  It's the very definition of sexual assault.

Those men should have faced criminal penalties so they didn't sexually assault more people in the future.   

But that's what strikes me as odd. 1) by labeling them sexual assault, I'm actually being told that I should feel victimized as I was a victim (unless sexual assault is a victimless crime). That seems not positive for one's psyche. 2) Does either individual sound like someone who is at high risk of actually harming someone? I could have taken both men and in case of scenario 1, definitely could have put a stop to it if I tried hard enough but it was easier to just let him do his quick little thing and be done with it.  I guess scenario 2 is a bit more complicated as I could really only have prevented it by going home that night and did in fact put a stop to it when I awoke.

I guess I'm not sure where the line is.  If I'm having sex with someone and they decide to come on my chest or face when I was like no, thanks, did they just assault me? How about someone who didn't give you notice they were coming when you were sucking them off with the added bit that you said you don't like to swallow?  Is sexual assault just a catch-all for things that happened during sex that you didn't like?

I am certainly not telling you how to feel.  If you don't feel like a victim, don't feel like a victim.  There is no right way for a complainant in any crime to feel.  I usually ask people "so what d you want to see happen out of this", and get wildly different answers.

The bright line is "no".  You said no, and they didn't stop.  Do they sound at risk of "harming" someone?  Well, yes.  Not that they're going to go out and rape someone at knifepoint, but that they'll in future violate the sexual integrity of others.  Part performance does predict future results.

And no.  I've never seen a charge for an individual element of otherwise consentual acts.  As I said the bright line is "no".  If it's "yes, but I don't want you to come on my chest", well that's not a "no".

[Jacob]

I'll spin out two personal examples (one of which I've shared in the past).

1) There was a fellow student (upperclassman) who I once slept with and then later went to visit in city. By the time we got into his bed - it was like 3 am and I was drunk and just ready for sleep.  Of course as he had me in his bed he was ready to go. I slapped his hand away several times and told him I wasn't up for it. He kept insisting and though I'd said no several times - essentially used me as a masturbatory toy before nodding off.  Was I sexually assaulted? His penis was on me when I didn't want it.

2) I met a guy while drunk at a bar and agreed to go to his place. We were messing around when he stated that he wanted me to fuck him. I said no as I was drunk and didn't think I was capable of making good decisions. All of that said out loud. Little bits of time would past and he'd suggest again to which I said no. At one point he tried to sneak a condom onto me.  I should have left but I was so tired that we both agreed to just go to sleep.  Next morning I woke up with a condom on and he was fucking himself on me. I quickly threw him off and was like I was pretty clear on that last night.  Was sexually assaulted/raped?

Both are shitty situations, and in both cases the guy made the wrong decision.

Were you traumatized by these encounters and thought of yourself as having been raped, I would have no issue agree with that. Conversely, if you're not traumatized and think it's just "a bit unfortunate" or funny or whatever, I'm perfectly fine not calling it rape as well.

Bottom line is, however, that the guys made the wrong decision and failed to get your consent. Had one of them been, say, your boss or professor I'd be perfectly fine with them losing their job over what they did, whether we call it rape or not.

[crazy canuck]

This thread veered into rape?

[MadImmortalMan]

I've been raped dozens of times by the Amherst standard. I kinda see where Garbo's coming from.

[MadImmortalMan]

This thread veered into rape?

Yeah because students are paying fifty grand a year to get raped. 

[Jacob]

But that's what strikes me as odd. 1) by labeling them sexual assault, I'm actually being told that I should feel victimized as I was a victim (unless sexual assault is a victimless crime). That seems not positive for one's psyche. 2) Does either individual sound like someone who is at high risk of actually harming someone? I could have taken both men and in case of scenario 1, definitely could have put a stop to it if I tried hard enough but it was easier to just let him do his quick little thing and be done with it.  I guess scenario 2 is a bit more complicated as I could really only have prevented it by going home that night and did in fact put a stop to it when I awoke.

I guess I'm not sure where the line is.  If I'm having sex with someone and they decide to come on my chest or face when I was like no, thanks, did they just assault me? How about someone who didn't give you notice they were coming when you were sucking them off with the added bit that you said you don't like to swallow?  Is sexual assault just a catch-all for things that happened during sex that you didn't like?

Yeah... this sort of thing informs the debate a fair bit, I think. Most of us have been in situations where consent was blurry, marginal, or absent - whether they were acted on or not. We all have a preferred way of looking at those incidents - whether we want to think of ourselves as victims or not, or whether we 'made a mistake anyone would've made' versus 'I could've made that mistake so easily, thankfully I didn't' versus 'that's how women like it/ it doesn't matter/ she really wanted it'; and that preference colours how we view these discussions a fair bit.

[garbon]

I wonder if you would still feel the same if you had been penetrated. I honestly don't know if that's a factor or not because I only have one perspective on the situation.

Oddly, even given my personal experiences, were I in your shoes, I probably wouldn't have reported them, either. I wouldn't have seen them again and I would have warned friends about them, but I most likely wouldn't have reported them. Like you, I'd be irritated and I'd feel like I learned a lesson, but yeah, not likely to ruin their lives over the situations as explained.

Yes, I also wonder if penetration is the factor that's different and if I'd have felt differently if they entered me.

And yes I agree with the rest of your paragraph - though that's why I'm hesitant to call it sexual assault - if I didn't think it a crime worth reporting.

[Valmy]

Which is why it's important to educate people so they're less likely to slip up and go too far.

Well I do not see how that is possible.  What might be too far for one person might not be for another.  Which is why I think it is perfectly fine so long as somebody stops what they are doing when the other person says something. 

I guess the alternative is we have very strict codes of etiquette where everything is very strictly controlled via social convention.  But we already did that and we rebelled remember?  Besides I don't know if that actually reduces rape.  But it probably reduces somebody getting a bit too frisky on a date.

[Jacob]

I've been raped dozens of times by the Amherst standard. I kinda see where Garbo's coming from.

You mean like you were by the 21 year old waitress the other day? That's the Amherst standard?

[garbon]

I am certainly not telling you how to feel.  If you don't feel like a victim, don't feel like a victim.  There is no right way for a complainant in any crime to feel.  I usually ask people "so what d you want to see happen out of this", and get wildly different answers.

I see. Put don't you also see how the victim label necessarily makes one have to re-consider whether they should feel like a victim.

The bright line is "no".  You said no, and they didn't stop.  Do they sound at risk of "harming" someone?  Well, yes.  Not that they're going to go out and rape someone at knifepoint, but that they'll in future violate the sexual integrity of others.  Part performance does predict future results.

Not sure I follow the sexual integrity bit. I'm not sure anyone was harmed here other than our relations.

And no.  I've never seen a charge for an individual element of otherwise consentual acts.  As I said the bright line is "no".  If it's "yes, but I don't want you to come on my chest", well that's not a "no".

But that's odd. I mean I'd consented to all the other acts in scenario 2 (including oral which was in B's hypothetical) just not the bit where he wanted me to penetrate him. Isn't that isolating one element of a consenting sexual encounter?

And then on that other bit - it is "No, I don't want you to come on my face/in my mouth but I will suck you." There was no consent for the semen deposit - so why does that get a pass?

[garbon]

Had one of them been, say, your boss or professor I'd be perfectly fine with them losing their job over what they did, whether we call it rape or not.

Really? I mean I could see them losing their jobs for having sex with me whether or not I gave consent but in general? I mean I went into their bed and in both cases consented to some level of activity (scenario 1 we made out and scenario 2 there was making out and oral) - so it isn't as though the coerced me into having all types of sexual activity.