Peter Nolan - Not Doing Men Any Favors

[SciFi Chick]

What's really horrible about this is they not only don't care that they have the wrong girl, they don't care if she goes out and kills herself.

Somethings needs to be done about the impunity with which someone's life can be ruined online.

[Sigma_Orionis]

Nutjob.

[Cyborg Girl]

This guy needs a taste of his own medicine, IMO.

[geonuc]

Somethings needs to be done about the impunity with which someone's life can be ruined online.

There are defamation laws this cover that sort of thing. I'd be surprised if someone wasn't looking in to that.

[SciFiFisher]

He doesn't care if he gets the wrong woman because the intent is to scare and intimidate all women. It really doesn't matter if he gets the wrong woman. In fact, in some ways it's even better if he gets the wrong one. The message is very clear "see, if you don't sit down and shut up this could be you. And you could be next even if all you are doing is pointing out that we got the wrong person."

This is a man who has decided that all women are evil. And if all women are inherently evil then even when he gets the wrong one it's OK because she is evil and deserves to be vilified. He is justifying it by claiming that femi-nazi's treat men this way so it's OK for him to treat women this way.

[FZR1KG]

This guy is a real asshole.

Likewise, so is the woman that charged rape.
***Warning adult content in the link***

http://www.worldstaruncut.com/uncut/63660

If that is what is considered rape it diminishes what I thought rape was.

[cid]

My big gripe in this is that Nolan's not sure if he's ID'ed the right person. That alone should have told him to keep his mouth shut. I think he's liable for
character assasination (or whatever the legal term is), and if she does harm to herself, he's liable on those grounds too.

OTOH...

The female in the video is in public, is not saying "NO!!", is not pushing him away, and frankly doesn't seem to be resisting at all.
IF (small word, big concept) the female in the video is claiming rape, I don't see it happening that way.

I see a really low (or no) class activity happening here (inebriated sex in public...what a novel concept), but rape? Nuh-uh...not to me.

Let's just hope these two never have conventional sex and thereby procreate. Two more of them we don't need.

So...is Nolan in the wrong? Only on the merits (or lack of same) on the identification. Beyond that, whoever the female in the video is
has no more claim to rape than I do to the Throne of England.

[Cyborg Girl]

Inebriated sex is (legally) rape.

I would also point out that

a) The old reasoning used to be that, if a woman just "gave in" and did not attempt to fight off an assailant, she'd be more likely to avoid serious injury. IIRC this turns out to be incorrect (might have to do with most rapists being sadistic cowards). In any case there has historically been a lot of pressure on women to avoid making a scene.

b) People sometimes lock up under extreme stress.

c) People tend to avoid interfering even when they can and damn well should. (c.f. the Kitty Genovese case.) Especially when they feel they might put themselves in danger.

Between such factors I would have no trouble believing a rape might be committed in broad daylight, in front of eyewitnesses.

[FZR1KG]

Inebriated sex is (legally) rape.

I would also point out that

a) The old reasoning used to be that, if a woman just "gave in" and did not attempt to fight off an assailant, she'd be more likely to avoid serious injury. IIRC this turns out to be incorrect (might have to do with most rapists being sadistic cowards). In any case there has historically been a lot of pressure on women to avoid making a scene.

b) People sometimes lock up under extreme stress.

c) People tend to avoid interfering even when they can and damn well should. (c.f. the Kitty Genovese case.) Especially when they feel they might put themselves in danger.

Between such factors I would have no trouble believing a rape might be committed in broad daylight, in front of eyewitnesses.

a) there were plenty of people there and rather than asking for help, she was ating like she was enjoying it. Probably because she was.

b) Last I checked a person frozen through fear doesn't flick their hair back, pull her would be rapists head in and gyrate.

c) People were having conversations with them while they were doing it.

Its fine to steer towards presuming a charge is valid but if you actually watch the video she was an active participant in the public display of getting oral sex, key word on active.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Inebriated sex is (legally) rape.

Nope. Sex with a person who is inebriated to the point where they are incapable of informed consent is rape. Depending on jurisdiction, of course, but that's a pretty universal standard in the Anglo-American common law world.

Of course, in this case, I really disagree with FZ. I see no reason to think that this woman was not sexually assaulted.

[Cyborg Girl]

TSC: Where I'm from it probably depends on blood alcohol level. I should really look this up... Though to be frank, I would want to avoid sex until I was absolutely damn sure my partner wasn't even tipsy.

FZ: you're right, I didn't watch the video. I figured that starting my day by viewing a recording of a violent crime just might be a little unhealthy.

Re "enjoying" - well, if she was completely sloshed, she could very well have thought it was a good idea and enjoyed it. And maybe later on she felt humiliated and taken advantage of. A lot of things that seem cool when you're drunk turn out to be really stupid. Sure one could argue that she shouldn't have gotten drunk, but getting drunk on occasion is not unethical or criminal. Knowingly taking advantage of someone whose judgment is impaired is definitely the former, and likely the latter.

[SciFiFisher]

According to current standards if a woman is drunk and afterwards claims she was raped it will be up to the defendants lawyer to prove she was legally competent to grant consent.

[SciFi Chick]

Of course, in this case, I really disagree with FZ. I see no reason to think that this woman was not sexually assaulted.

Did you watch the video? She was clearly enjoying herself. And the cops have not, nor do they intend to, bring any charges.

FZ: you're right, I didn't watch the video. I figured that starting my day by viewing a recording of a violent crime just might be a little unhealthy.

Oral sex in public is not a violent crime. She was clearly enjoying it. Also, she wasn't the only one who was inebriated. Why are men the only ones being held responsible for the amount of alcohol they consume?

I expect women to take responsibility for themselves. I know women who have been raped, and they would be insulted that this act is being even remotely compared to rape.

Not that it surprises me that you would assume it's rape with no knowledge of the case whatsoever. That is your default position on these things.

[FZR1KG]

Of course, in this case, I really disagree with FZ. I see no reason to think that this woman was not sexually assaulted.

Just curious, did you see the video?

Seeing as this is going in the too drunk to be responsible basket, I have to ask. Why do we have differing standards to drunk people and their behaviour?

If I get drunk and drive a car, I am responsible for my actions.
If I get drunk and do anything stupid, I am responsible for my actions.
If I get drunk and have sex, the other person is responsible because I can't be responsible for myself. wtf?

Same with the mentality that some people have. The student in the video (not the "victim") that was saying how people that are walking past should have asked, "is this what you really want to do?" instead of taking video and pictures throwing blame around on everyone but exonerating the woman involved.
Really?
If I see two people having sex, both who appear to be enjoying it, why the hell would I ask if that's what they really want. Does she expect me to knock on the neighbours door at a motel room if I hear sex and ask, "is this what you really want to do?"
How about, if that's not what you want to do and there are plenty of people around, that you be expected to ask for help. Though it is pretty hard to do and appear legitimate while pulling your partners head into your crotch and moving your hips to give him a better angle.
Sheesh.

While I agree with the idea that people should not be taken advantage of, the whole thing breaks down for me when society is expected to take care of you when you fuckup and get drunk and if they don't, they are to blame. It breeds irresponsible behaviour and the attitude that one can do what one wants and not have any repercussions.
That is simply delusional.

Add to that, if fisher is right, now the alleged attacker has to prove the victim was sober enough to give consent. That is going to be pretty damned hard. Prove I wasn't drunk is another way of saying it.

Finally, for the record, how drunk can a person possibly get to get them to have public sex early in the morning if it was something they weren't likely to do sober?
There would be puke all over.

Passed out and getting taken advantage of I am behind you 100%.
Had a bit too much to drink, regret my decision and throw around a rape accusation, fuck no.

[The Supreme Canuck]

Did you watch the video? She was clearly enjoying herself. And the cops have not, nor do they intend to, bring any charges.

See, that doesn't matter. It's related to what matters, but it doesn't matter. What matters is two things: 1) whether the woman, in her own mind, actually formed consent, and 2) whether the person having sex with the woman, on a "reasonable person standard," had an "honest but mistaken belief" that she consented.

Now, you may call that splitting hairs, but they're important hairs to split. It's important to keep the elements of the offence and defences against that offence separate in legal analysis. Doing so means that 1) the crime of sexual assault (or rape, or whatever you call it) is based entirely on consent. No consent? Rape. Done. And that 2) there is a defence against that crime for individuals accused of rape who (again, on a reasonable person standard) honestly believed that their actions were being consented to.

It seems complicated, but I assure you that it vastly simplifies things and ensures that victim-blaming and "well, she wanted it" thinking are far less likely to enter into the courtroom. Which is why I disagree with FZ's reductive "she's enjoying it" analysis. It's too simplistic and leaves out too much important context and categorization. It asks the wrong question. It asks "Does she, to outward appearances, seem to be enjoying this? If yes, that is conclusive evidence of consent and there has therefore been no crime committed."

Bad. Incorrect. Why? Because outward appearances have nothing to do with subjective mental state. There have been cases where this is exactly the issue. Say a woman doesn't consent to intercourse, but she says she does and acts like she does because she's afraid of being harmed if she says no. Is that rape? Asking FZ's question, the answer is no. Even though someone had sex with her without her informed consent. So now rape doesn't mean "sex without informed consent."

Okay. So what are the right questions to ask? Well, 1) "Did this woman, at the time of the intercourse, actually consent to that intercourse?" and 2) "Would a reasonable person, in the same position as the accused rapist, have honestly thought that the woman did consent?" Consider the same example as I just gave above. What you end up with is two answers: 1) because there was sex without consent, this was a rape, and 2) because there was no reason for the accused to think there was no consent, he has made out a defence to the offence and is therefore not guilty.

Why's that better? Because it preserves what the offence of sexual assault is (sex without actual consent) and it takes real-world practicalities (like honestly but wrongly believing that your partner is consenting) into account in determining guilt.

So I get what FZ's saying. Really, I do. But it's too problematic for me not to disagree with it.

Edit:

FZ: I'll add this to what I said above to answer your question about responsibility while inebriated. The only question that matters is my first one: was there, at the time of the intercourse, informed consent? If yes, no rape; if no, rape. Period.

When alcohol comes into it, there are three possibilities:

1) The woman is not drunk enough to be unable to form consent, and she in fact consents. This is not rape.
2) The woman is not drunk enough to be unable to form consent, and she in fact does not consent. Keep in mind this is her subjective mental state, not whether she appears to be enjoying herself or not. This is rape (and is subject to defences - my second question).
3) The woman is drunk enough to be unable to form consent. This is rape (again, subject to defences), since there can be no consent.

Edit 2:

Also, I do realize that this is me being kind of a dick by saying "here's why you're wrong." Not my intent, but it comes across that way. Ugh.

[FZR1KG]

I get what you're saying TSC.
Here's my problem with the way things are now.
What I see is rape is being diminished.
Its becoming more and more apparent that there is now a bias towards how men and women are treated.
Want a perfect example, in the video, the man's face is visible but the woman's is blanked out.
Want another, women who insist that any heterosexual sex is rape because a woman can't give consent because by her upbringing she has been conditioned to accept being raped, and then the men who believe this.

What's next, a romantic dinner and a glass or two of wine means a rape is likely to be committed.
Should we start patrolling restaurants renouned for their fine dining and romantic atmosphere and asking any couples drinking wine, "is this really what you want to do?"

People need to take some damned personal responsibility.

BTW, have you ever heard of drunk sex?
Many women like it. It makes them feel better about themselves. So they deliberately get drunk to get laid.
Rarely its a pre-organised thing. I feel more relaxed, I can enjoy myself more, I don't feel so shy, I can orgasm, I don't feel dirty or guilty after a few drinks etc.
More often women do it without letting the guy know, instead they drink with the guy till they are both tipsy then they go off to shag.
I have personally been the victim in this female rapist culture. Guess what happens when I tell people what happened?
Hahaha, bet you feel really violated etc.
If a woman says the same thing, its taken seriously as rape.

I get the distinct impression that there are a lot of people in the world that seem to think women don't like sex and the only way a guy gets to have sex with a woman is by some form of manipulation, alcohol, drugs or force.
They are wrong.

[Rommie]

Yeah, if having sex when you're drunk is rape, then I and a few of my partners might be in trouble.

That said, this ties into two big articles I saw passed around recently online, an online columnist who dared to tell college women that getting blackout drunk might have consequences (the headline is alas trolling), and a look into the "men's rights" movement. Conclusions I gathered from both is a. a lot of folks don't get that (for an analogy) if a guy walks down a dark alley at 2am and gets mugged the mugging is not his fault but he was putting himself in a situation where it was more likely to happen, and b. men's rights movements have good points but a lot of that is drowned out by how their members are assholes. Like the guy in the first article.

But just ignore me, I'm just adding fuel to the fire while I ready my popcorn.

[FZR1KG]

The whole concept of the mens movement is a joke.
It should never have happened.

The reason that its happened is because of the ridiculous nature of the feminazi movement and how much they have been accepted as the bearers of wisdom when they reality is they are successful fertilizer saleswomen.
Throw in enough shit and something will grow.

Men's movement. Seriously?
I'm at the point where the wisest thing I have to say to the members and supporters of the men's movement is they are acting like a bunch of girls.

[Sigma_Orionis]

IMHO, anyone who needs to hide behind the likes of Peter Nolan is a Darwin Award finalist.

[Popcorn]

Yeah, if having sex when you're drunk is rape, then I and a few of my partners might be in trouble.

That said, this ties into two big articles I saw passed around recently online, an online columnist who dared to tell college women that getting blackout drunk might have consequences (the headline is alas trolling), and a look into the "men's rights" movement. Conclusions I gathered from both is a. a lot of folks don't get that (for an analogy) if a guy walks down a dark alley at 2am and gets mugged the mugging is not his fault but he was putting himself in a situation where it was more likely to happen, and b. men's rights movements have good points but a lot of that is drowned out by how their members are assholes. Like the guy in the first article.

But just ignore me, I'm just adding fuel to the fire while I ready my popcorn.

Ready and reporting for work, mam! (Sorry, but I have a hard time saying dirty words like "duty" with out gigg... tee heeee)