Welcoming /r/TwoXChromosomes to the defaults, did a female comedian rape a drunk man? (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
125 ups - 49 downs = 76 votes
212 comments submitted at 19:27:26 on May 7, 2014 by Kandon_Arc
Welcoming /r/TwoXChromosomes to the defaults, did a female comedian rape a drunk man? (np.reddit.com)
SubredditDrama
125 ups - 49 downs = 76 votes
212 comments submitted at 19:27:26 on May 7, 2014 by Kandon_Arc
That's... Really fucked up.
I was all prepared to be on the side of "not all drunk sex is rape", and talk about how we don't have a good operational definition for the line between "enough to drink for lowering inhibitions and having fun" and "so much to drink that you're no longer capable of giving consent."
But this isn't anywhere near that line. This is one of those cases where (assuming, as the law and society does, that someone completely wasted can't consent) there's no real dispute. It was rape, and she got applause and accolades for the bravery of telling that story. Holy hell. Can you imagine if Daniel Tosh told the same story and tried to use the girl being dry as a laugh line?
This isn't an edge case of a couple of beers and maybe he was over the line. This is way, way, over the line.
And the idea that because he was trying to have sex with her it must not have been rape is ludicrous. A drunk, horny, woman can be the most enthusiastic partner in the world. But if she's too smashed to remain conscious it's rape. Even if she's on top.
I'm unsure what to make of the story because I read the article linked in the OP of 2X and it seemed like clear rape as the author described it. But then I read Schumer's transcript and it becomes less clear.
In the actual speech she says that her dream guy invited her around, she turns up and he's drunk. He basically tells her that he's going to rock her world, pushes her down on the bed, climbs on top and awkwardly tries to fuck her whilst she looks for excuses and moments to escape.
It might still be considered rape because maybe she could have tried harder to get away or push him off her, but the article discussing it makes it sound like she was fucking him whilst he was passing out and trying to keep the whole experience going when her speech makes it quite clear that she was: a) trying to hide her tears, and b) look for a way to get out.
Reverse the scenario and it becomes a lot less ambiguous.
I was a lonely, overweight, unpopular Freshman in college, and my dream girl invited me to have sex with her. She couldn't focus on me properly, I knew she was drunk out of her mind, but I went along with it. She helped me down on to her bed, and tried to climb on top of me. I wasn't enjoying it (particularly since she was dry as sandpaper), but she kept trying.
I may be more sympathetic than someone who held a knife to a woman's throat. But the point at which I should have noped the hell out of there was when she was drunk out of her mind.
And a lot of the defense of her focuses on a kind of preemptive consent, where because he suggested they have sex he was by definition not raped. That's simply not how it works. If you're incapable of consenting at the time you have sex, you did not consent.
>Reverse the scenario and it becomes a lot less ambiguous.
Yeah, I did that and I still thought it was ambiguous (or, at the very least, nowhere near as obvious as how it was described in the linked article).
>I was a lonely, overweight, unpopular Freshman in college, and my dream girl invited me to have sex with her. She couldn't focus on me properly, I knew she was drunk out of her mind, but I went along with it. She helped me down on to her bed, and tried to climb on top of me. I wasn't enjoying it (particularly since she was dry as sandpaper), but she kept trying.
Well I think you've taken a few liberties with the re-telling there that changes the context significantly. It would be more like:
"I was a lonely, overweight, unpopular Freshman in college, and my dream girl invited me to have sex with her. She couldn't focus on me properly, I knew she was drunk out of her mind, but I entered her room. She pushed me down on to her bed, and climbed on top of me. I wasn't enjoying it (particularly since she was dry as sandpaper), but she kept trying. I attempted to leave but my arm was pinned down by her body. I eventually manage to get it free and leave". (My changes in bold)
In the scenario much closer to the one told by Amy, I'd still need more information about the guy and the situation to determine whether it was rape. And obviously the problem with doing the "gender swap" trick is that it's a little more complex than that, where we might expect the average guy to easily be able to move the average girl off of him (in absence of any actual details on differences in strength or size, etc).
>I may be more sympathetic than someone who held a knife to a woman's throat. But the point at which I should have noped the hell out of there was when she was drunk out of her mind.
Perhaps, but presumably there is nothing illegal (or even morally problematic) about someone being stunned at the reality of their dream crush that they stand in their room for a moment too long, at which point they are thrown onto a bed and mounted.
>And a lot of the defense of her focuses on a kind of preemptive consent, where because he suggested they have sex he was by definition not raped. That's simply not how it works. If you're incapable of consenting at the time you have sex, you did not consent.
Definitely agreed, if someone is at that level of drunkenness then they simply can't consent. Man, I wish this simple point could be agreed upon when the thousands of discussions on drunken women being taken advantage of come up but with those discussions I tend to find myself fighting idiots who think it's not rape because she was actively engaging in the sexual activity.
>I knew she was drunk out of her mind, but I entered her room. She pushed me down on to her bed, and climbed on top of me
That's kind of taking liberties, too. The way you describe it here (a) shortens the timeframe during which she/I could have left the situation or refuses (where Schumer describes some passage of time before being pushed on to the bed) and make it sound like she was taken suddenly and without warning (thus being unable to "nope the hell out of there").
>it's a little more complex than that, where we might expect the average guy to easily be able to move the average girl off of him (in absence of any actual details on differences in strength or size, etc).
Relevant only at the point after which the guy has said "this obviously drunk girl is inviting me in to have sex with her, now we're fooling around a bit and clearly about to have sex, and she's still drunk, now I'm pushed on to the bed and she's still drunk."
The part where she should have said "nope" was when he was clearly blitzed out of his mind, not the point at which he's pushing rope.
>presumably there is nothing illegal (or even morally problematic) about someone being stunned at the reality of their dream crush that they stand in their room for a moment too long, at which point they are thrown onto a bed and mounted.
Well, first, it's not like he arrived at her door, and she was so stunned by him being there that she couldn't decide what to do. She got the text, made her way to his room, knocked, got a hug, had time to notice he was drunk out of his gourd, etc.
>I wish this simple point could be agreed upon when the thousands of discussions on drunken women being taken advantage of come up but with those discussions I tend to find myself fighting idiots who think it's not rape because she was actively engaging in the sexual activity.
Funny story about that:
http://www.reddit.com/r/SubredditDrama/comments/24z60t/welcomingrtwoxchromosomestothedefaultsdida/chcej2x
>That's kind of taking liberties, too. The way you describe it here (a) shortens the timeframe during which she/I could have left the situation or refuses (where Schumer describes some passage of time before being pushed on to the bed) and make it sound like she was taken suddenly and without warning (thus being unable to "nope the hell out of there").
Not at all, I've simply paraphrased how she describes it. I purposefully left out any reference to a time frame as she didn't mention any either, except that he put music on and then pushed her on to the bed.
We have no way of knowing whether it was sprung on her or whether there was something leading up to it, but I've described it basically as she did (with no mention of anything leading up to it).
>Relevant only at the point after which the guy has said "this obviously drunk girl is inviting me in to have sex with her, now we're fooling around a bit and clearly about to have sex, and she's still drunk, now I'm pushed on to the bed and she's still drunk."
Back up a little: at what point was she supposed to know that she was there to have sex with him? As she describes it, she was under the impression that they were going to spend the day together and she mentions a number of activities he might have had planned (like breakfast, fishing, hanging out with his family). When she realises no such plans exists, she says that she felt the irrational need to stay because she had fantasies of them holding hands on campus and her being able to declare that she's his girlfriend.
As she describes it, she enters the bedroom somewhat dumbfounded, he puts some music on, and then he pushes her down on the bed to get down to business. At no point is there any "fooling around" beforehand.
>The part where she should have said "nope" was when he was clearly blitzed out of his mind, not the point at which he's pushing rope.
You've never hung out with a drunk girl, with no intentions of having sex with her?
>Well, first, it's not like he arrived at her door, and she was so stunned by him being there that she couldn't decide what to do. She got the text, made her way to his room, knocked, got a hug, had time to notice he was drunk out of his gourd, etc.
But the stunned part occurred after everything you've described. It was at the point after being hugged that she realised he was drunk. I don't know about you but when I go around to see friends, even with a hug, I don't generally stand around outside for more than a couple of seconds.
And even if she did have more time to think it over, how was it a bad judgement call to think: "Fuck, this guy is wasted but I still quite like him, maybe I should hang out for a while"? It's not like she knew she was a booty call or was necessarily planning on fucking him.
>Funny story about that:
I don't understand the reference. The comment there doesn't say that he consented because he was actively engaging.
> I purposefully left out any reference to a time frame as she didn't mention any either, except that he put music on and then pushed her on to the bed.
"Finally, the door opens. It's Matt, but not really. He's there, but not really. His face is kind of distorted, and his eyes seem like he can't focus on me. He's actually trying to see me from the side, like a shark. "Hey!" he yells, too loud, and gives me a hug, too hard. He's fucking wasted. I'm not the first person he thought of that morning. I'm the last person he called that night. I wonder, how many girls didn't answer before he got to fat freshman me? Am I in his phone as Schumer?"
That's a lot of time for (a) observation, (b) action, and (c) contemplation before he pushes her on to his bed. It's possible she's embellishing for effect, but if we're going to take her at her word, it seems right to take her at all of her words.
>You've never hung out with a drunk girl, with no intentions of having sex with her?
On her bed, kissing, and letting her rub my dick? No, I can't say I've ever done those things without the intent of having sex with someone.
And perhaps it's because I've taken (a) the feminist messages on that subject from when I was in college, and (b) the paranoia instilled by working as a defense attorney to heart, but I have actively avoided being around drunk girls trying to get into my pants.
>I don't understand the reference. The comment there doesn't say that he consented because he was actively engaging.
The entire point of that post was that it wasn't rape because he was the one doing the thrusting while she was laying on the bed.
> That's a lot of time for (a) observation, (b) action, and (c) contemplation before he pushes her on to his bed. It's possible she's embellishing for effect, but if we're going to take her at her word, it seems right to take her at all of her words.
I'd be surprised if the whole interaction took more than 10 seconds maximum. Who stands outside a doorway for more than 10 seconds in silence?
>On her bed, kissing, and letting her rub my dick? No, I can't say I've ever done those things without the intent of having sex with someone.
And that occurred after being pushed on to the bed, remember.
You said that you would nope out of there once you realised that the girl was drunk and I asked if you had ever hung out with a drunk girl. If you have ever hung out with a drunk girl (and honestly, I really think you and everyone else probably has at some point) then you clearly aren't abiding by your own rule.
What you meant to say was that when about to engage in sexual activities with a girl, you would nope out of there when you realised she was drunk. But remember that, according to Schumer, she had no intention or realisation that any sex was going to occur until she had already been pushed on to the bed and mounted.
>And perhaps it's because I've taken (a) the feminist messages on that subject from when I was in college, and (b) the paranoia instilled by working as a defense attorney to heart, but I have actively avoided being around drunk girls trying to get into my pants.
Who said anything about "trying to get into your pants"? To properly compare it to the situation we're discussing you have to assume that you have no idea that she wants to get into your pants. Whilst you're with the drunk girl you are dreaming of meeting their parents, getting married, and holding hands.
>The entire point of that post was that it wasn't rape because he was the one doing the thrusting while she was laying on the bed.
The entire point was that we have no idea whether Schumer had consented or engaged in the sex in any way - if she doesn't consent then she can't be raping him.
To make it easier to understand, assume that Schumer is asleep whilst the entire thing is going on. She's sober, sure, but she's not raping him simply because he's drunk. She needs to actively participate, that's why "raping" is a verb.
I'm open to considering both views, but the difference between Schumer's original piece and what Thought Catalog excerpted is that she describes the guy as active. He called her, he pushed her on the bed, he put his fingers inside her, he tried (and failed) to penetrate her with his dick, he went down on her and fell asleep. She never describes herself doing anything active.
>She never describes herself doing anything active.
So, a drunk girl in cowgirl position is less rape than a drunk girl in missionary?
No, both of those positions are rape but the point is the participation on the part of the sober person. A sober girl in cowgirl position with a drunk guy is almost definitely rape (unless there is some force or coercion involved in getting her in that position) whereas a sober girl in missionary position is still ambiguous and requires more information. [And I'd argue the same with the genders reversed].
To put it another way: the drunk person still needs to get consent from their partner before engaging in sexual activity with them. If a drunk person forces themselves on an unconsenting sober person, then that sober person is not guilty of rape simply because the other person was drunk (i.e. the drunk person is still responsible for their actions even if they cannot consent).
For a sober person to rape a drunk person, the sober person must be actively participating in the sex (i.e. consenting whilst their partner cannot consent). If they aren't actively participating, or even verbally consenting, and they are looking for opportunities to leave whilst crying, then I think it's questionable whether we can say that they have raped someone. [Not saying that this is necessarily true in the Schumer case, just pointing out the importance of active participation on the part of the sober person].
>whereas a sober girl in missionary position is still ambiguous and requires more information. [And I'd argue the same with the genders reversed].
So, drunk girl in cowgirl is ambiguous, but the same drunk girl in missionary is almost definitely rape? I'm really not understanding the distinction, except for what appears to be the underlying assumption that if a woman is drunk and on bottom she is likely more-or-less insensate and being taken advantage of.
>If a drunk person forces themselves on an unconsenting sober person, then that sober person is not guilty of rape simply because the other person was drunk (i.e. the drunk person is still responsible for their actions even if they cannot consent).
That I will agree with. But you're also starting to assume that whoever is on bottom is by definition less responsible for the sex than the person on top.
>If they aren't actively participating, or even verbally consenting, and they are looking for opportunities to leave whilst crying.
The part where she showed up, didn't leave when he was clearly drunk out of his gourd, got in bed with him, kissed him (which she describes as being at the very least something she engaged in with him), is at least her consenting while he is incapable.
Your standard would say that the drunk girl taken advantage of by a frat guy who insists on her being on top would make it less rape because he wasn't the one doing the thrusting.
>So, drunk girl in cowgirl is ambiguous, but the same drunk girl in missionary is almost definitely rape?
Huh? No, I explicitly said that both are rape.
>I'm really not understanding the distinction, except for what appears to be the underlying assumption that if a woman is drunk and on bottom she is likely more-or-less insensate and being taken advantage of.
The distinction is about the participation of the sober person. Active participation is a decent guide to whether the sober person is initiating sex with a person who cannot consent, or whether they are essentially have that sex done to them. More simply: you cannot be guilty of rape if you don't consent to that sex.
>That I will agree with. But you're also starting to assume that whoever is on bottom is by definition less responsible for the sex than the person on top.
Not less responsible but more that a person on top has far more control over the situation than someone underneath. The person on top can usually just get up and leave, whereas the person underneath obviously can't.
>The part where she showed up, didn't leave when he was clearly drunk out of his gourd
None of those are sexual activities or even vaguely illegal though.
>got in bed with him
Pushed into bed and mounted, according to her description.
>kissed him (which she describes as being at the very least something she engaged in with him)
Sure, let's just accept that.
>is at least her consenting while he is incapable.
In the immortal words of the Conchords, a kiss is not a contract. And since kissing is the only vaguely sexual thing in the whole description where she may have participated, I think we can safely conclude that there was no active participation in the sex on her part (according to her description).
>Your standard would say that the drunk girl taken advantage of by a frat guy who insists on her being on top would make it less rape because he wasn't the one doing the thrusting.
No it wouldn't, because I explicitly stated that it would be rape even if the drunk person was on top. But that depends entirely on whether the other person is consenting and engaging in the sexual activities.
If someone is on top, uncoerced, and pumping away at the person underneath them, then I think it's safe to say that they are actively engaging. If someone is underneath, being pumped away at by the person on top, then I don't think it's safe to say that they are actively engaging. They might be but we'd need more information.
Kissing him. "We tried kissing." (Not that that is enough for guilty as charged, but it's an action she used language indicating she participated equally.)
>If you're incapable of consenting at the time you have sex, you did not consent.
The issue is that a married couple who wakes each other up with sex acts for the last decade are not deemed rapists. Yet sleeping individuals cannot consent. Future consent exists, because the previously mentioned couple aren't rapists, but no one has been able to codify how it exists. That said, since all previous consent was done while drunk, this line of thought does not apply to the linked case.
Did you read her actual speech or just anonymous' characterisation of it? I read her speech and I don't see it as rape.
You mean the part where she went to the dorm room of someone she wanted to have sex with, recognized he was so drunk that he was not himself, couldn't focus on her properly, and was clearly not in his right mind? Or where she made fun of him for his inability to get it up, to the applause, accolades, and amusement of a room full of ardent feminists?
The point at which he was too drunk to focus on her clearly is the point at which she needed to stop having sex with him under any circumstances.
She went to the dorm room of someone she wanted under the deluded idea that he would confess his love for her. She recognised that he was wasted, and she accepted his invitation in anyway (which was stupid, but isn't rape). From them on, she doesn't do anything. She lies back and looks at the posters on the wall, that's not rape.
When you are drunk, you are responsible for your actions. When you are drunk, you cannot consent to someone else doing something to them. Schumer lying on his bed is not doing something to him. The only thing that she did to him in the entire story was shake him awake so that he'd change the music. And that's not rape.
And that's true regardless of the gender. A scenario where a drunk woman attempts to go down on, and attempts to have sex with a sober man who lies back and doesn't do anything isn't rape either.
>From them on, she doesn't do anything. She lies back and looks at the posters on the wall, that's not rape.
So, obviously shitfaced girl is giving consent as long as she's the one on top? It's okay if that's the standard, but are you really saying that the same girl, same level of drunkenness, in missionary position was raped, but reverse cowgirl wasn't?
That's just... Bullshit.
>When you are drunk, you cannot consent to someone else doing something to them
So... Yes. If the woman climbs on top, even if she's completely black-out, knee-walking, drunk it's not rape because by being on top she is doing something to the man (and his penis).
>A scenario where a drunk woman attempts to go down on, and attempts to have sex with a sober man who lies back and doesn't do anything isn't rape either.
That's consistent, at least. But I doubt you'll get much traction really anywhere (except TRP, maybe) for the mindset that says if a woman gets completely drunk, but actively participates in the sex, it isn't rape.
>That's consistent, at least. But I doubt you'll get much traction really anywhere (except TRP, maybe) for the mindset that says if a woman gets completely drunk, but actively participates in the sex, it isn't rape.
There's a difference between actively responding, actively participating and actively pushing for sexual contact. In Schumer's story, she isn't doing any of these. But Schumer's story aside, there's a difference.
Again, drunk girl in missionary might be rape, but the same drunk girl doing it reverse cowgirl is clearly not rape because she was the one "actively participating"?
If so, that's fine. But even then, that's not how /r/feminism, /r/TwoXChromosomes, or really anyone else defines it. The wettest girl begging for sex the most is still a rape victim if she was completely shitfaced at the time.
> There's a difference between actively responding, actively participating and actively pushing for sexual contact.
Dude, learn to read. Also, telling me how rape is defined by a subreddit run by an MRMer and a subreddit overrun with trolls is a terrible idea.
Did you just argue that /r/feminism is run by a men's rights advocate? And that the people on /r/TwoXChromosomes are mostly trolls?
But your argument is still farkakte. Someone drunk out of their mind can want sex, can push for sex, and actively participate in it, and still be too drunk to have consented in the first place. It's particularly bad when the person who has sex with them is completely aware of how out of their mind the person is.
Yup. /r/feminism is run by /u/demmian by fiat, and he's banned an enormous number of feminists. See /r/WhereAreTheFeminists. And no, the people on /r/TwoXChromosomes aren't mostly trolls, but the sub has been overrun by trolls recently. It's not at all unusual to come into a thread and see victim blaming be hugely upvoted, or comments mocking feminism, privilege and so on.
If someone drunk out of their mind pushes for sex and is the only party actively doing anything, then no, they aren't a rape victim. There's an old trope of a drunk man who enters his partner's bedroom (this is usually a marriage trope) and his partner lies back and lets it happen. She waits for him to be done or to pass out and then she goes to sleep. Lying back and letting someone else iniate sexual contact is not rape. It's just not.
For one I think you're giving her some serious leniency to assume that she was just totally passive, and just walked in there, laid on the bed because it was comfortable, and he took all her clothes off. She doesn't explicitly say she did nothing.
And I don't really follow the lack of agency thing. When does she not have agency? Maybe I misinterpreted what you said about that in other comments though.
I think the whole argument that you can't commit a sex crime against someone if you just are pretty passive during sex is spurious. Doing nothing is an action, that is generally made with choice/agency.
We have her side of the story, and that's all we have. I'm not going to assume that other things happened that we weren't told. Could they have? Sure. The story could also be total bullshit, we have no way of knowing.
All we do have is the story, let's not start reading into it assuming we know what happened, that's nuts.
Yes, using agency was the wrong word, as I was combining multiple concepts into one sentence. If you look at this in terms of consent and action, she doesn't do anything for him to consent to. I said agencyless because yes, while it was her choice to stay and not run as fast as possible, the various societal pressures made her lie back and assume that this was how it was supposed to be. So yeah, multiple concepts wrapped up there, I should have been clearer.
>I think the whole argument that you can't commit a sex crime against someone if you just are pretty passive during sex is spurious. Doing nothing is an action, that is generally made with choice/agency.
What? That's nuts! Sure, he can't consent when he's wasted drunk, but if she doesn't do anything, then there's nothing for him to consent to. And that's absolutely the same if you switch the genders. If you have a sober guy, who's crawled all over by a drunk girl and he doesn't do anything, he is not a rapist.
By that logic, a wasted guy who repeatably groped and sexually harassed a sober woman would be a rape victim, because she didn't stop him. People are still responsible for their actions when they are wasted. They just can't consent to the actions of someone else.
I'm not assuming she did something, just warning against assuming she did nothing else.
I think a good example to address your last point is to maybe instead of just gender flipping, what if it was a guy allowing a drunk 16 year old girl to do this to him while he did nothing. How about a 13 year old girl? 10? 7?... Is there still nothing to consent to?
I think your logic also implies that she could have given him the alcohol herself, hoping he would become drunk enough to have sex with her, then lied back and done nothing and still have been in the clear.
Come on, you're not even trying. I know you can troll harder than that.
I'm using an absurd example but am being genuine. I am simply trying to use the old reduction to absurdity to show how your "I'm not doing anything" loop hole is fallacious. The age of consent is 16-18 in the US. Let's trade unable to consent due to intoxication with unable to consent due to age. By your logic a guy "who's crawled all over" by a 15 year old is not committing a sex crime because there's "nothing for (her) to consent to".