Question: are women to blame for being raped if they were wearing revealing clothing according to teaching?

[Fone_Bone_2001]

It seems there’s a consensus that men who commit rape are still responsible for their actions, the consensus also seems to be that rape isn’t really about sex, anyway. So, what if a man doesn’t commit rape, but does react to temptation in other ways such as masturbating, trying to seduce the lightly dressed woman, hiring a prostitute (especially if the immodestly dressed woman is a prostitute), etc? Would everyone still agree that such a man is still responsible for his actions? Or would his culpability be mitigated by the scandalous actions of “that woman”?

This is just my opinion, not Catholic teaching, but I think my opinion is fully compatible with Catholic teaching.

His impure thoughts/masturbation may be mitigated by the woman’s behavior, but under no circumstances is his unchastity (lust/masturbation/etc.) even slightly that woman’s fault.

Does that make sense? In other words, it may make it less his fault, but it never makes it even partially the woman’s fault, ever.

Not true.

Please, God, tell me you’re just trolling…

Some do, either implicitly or explicitly.

It’s tautologically impossible for a woman to “ask to be raped.” Go look up rape in the dictionary.

Also: what LilyM and ToeintheWater said.

/thread

 

[roveau]

I read this quote on a Catholic website explaining teachings of the Church -
scripturecatholic.com/modest_dress.html
Does this imply that women are to blame if they are raped while wearing immodest dress? I may not know a lot about Catholicism but it seems to be implying so here. I don’t know which is more likely to be insulting to people - the suggestion that men are sexual creatures who can’t help themselves, or that women who wear short skirts are asking for it.

Women are not to blame for being raped no matter what they wear, even if they go naked, only because there is no excuse under the sun for a woman to be raped under any circumstances.

 

[lobster]

No, it doesn’t. The very idea that rape is ever a woman’s fault is as vile and reprehensible as it is utterly stupid and ignorant. Which is to say, very reprehensible.

No you are very much mistaken. An idea is never vile and reprehensible. It is either right or wrong. To say otherwise is to be motivated by emotion rather than reason.

Furthermore, rape is about violence more than sex.

This is totally irrelevant. Rape is wrong because it is a grievous matter involving the violation of the sacredness of a person’s body. Whatever the motivation, it is still grievous matter. Degree of culpability is dependent on several factors as with all grievous acts.

In the ancient Greek comedy Lysistrata,

This is a morally reprehensible play and an utter affront to the sacredness of marriage and the duties of two persons to each other within that covenant. Refusing to give of each other completely for other material wants is a serious sin in itself. Any small truth to be gained from this play is far overshadowed by its moral shortcomings and the imagery it explicitly provokes.

Please, God, tell me you’re just trolling…

Why are you asking God to tell you He is trolling?

 

[markomalley]

I read this quote on a Catholic website explaining teachings of the Church -

scripturecatholic.com/modest_dress.html

Does this imply that women are to blame if they are raped while wearing immodest dress? I may not know a lot about Catholicism but it seems to be implying so here. I don’t know which is more likely to be insulting to people - the suggestion that men are sexual creatures who can’t help themselves, or that women who wear short skirts are asking for it.

Women should simply not wear immodest dress. It is utterly uncharitable for them to do so. It puts a man (or another woman) in a near occasion of sin, unless that man (other woman) has total custody of the eyes, which is, believe me, a very difficult task that at least I have not managed to master yet.

Dress is a part of an image where one creates a first impression for others. This advertisement the clothes he or she wears, the way he/she keeps his/her hygiene, and the way he/she carries him/herself.

• If I see a man with a teardrop tattoo by his eye, my first impression is that he has murdered somebody…
• If I see a man wearing a Roman collar, my first impression is that he is a priest or a pastor from another denomination
• If I see a woman dressed in a habit, my first impression is that she is a professed religious
• If I see a person in a military uniform, my first impression is that he/she in the service
• If I see a man or a woman in business clothes, my first impression is that he/she is a professional
• If I see a 7 or 8 year old kid with uncombed hair (i.e., hair utterly tangled and frizzed everywhere), unbrushed teeth, dirty face and dirty clothes, my first impression is that there is some kind of an issue at home (could be poverty, could be neglect, could be parent(s) with drug or alcohol issues, could be parents with chronic, debilitating illness, or whatever)
• If I see a woman dressed modestly, I have one first impression
• And, if I see a woman dressed like a streetwalker, I am going to make certain assumptions as a first impression, as well

I find it very tiresome when a woman who dresses seductively complains about men (or other women) staring at her, making catcalls, and so on. She should not be, in the least bit, surprised at the behavior. If she doesn’t want to attract that sort of attention, she shouldn’t dress in a fashion that asks for it.

And if she happens to combine that kind of dress with placing herself in a situation where she ought not to be, then, yes, I can see that the form of dress could attract attention that could lead to an outcome that she wouldn’t want to have happen. Does that mean she is partially responsible if that outcome happens to be sex that she either didn’t want when it actually came down to it? No. However, would she have had that outcome had she not put herself in the position to begin with?

From a common sense perspective, you have got to think about it. As an example: A woman dresses in a revealing dress and goes to a local nightclub by herself. She flirts with the male customers and allows them to buy her multiple drinks. She ends up drunk. One of the male patrons of the bar offers her a ride home. She accepts and ends up at his place. They have sex. The next morning, with a bad hangover, she realizes what she had done and says OM*, he got me drunk and took advantage of me. That’s rape. She calls the cops and the guy is charged with 3rd degree sexual assault.

Should the guy have taken advantage of her when she was drunk? Absolutely not. No excuse for it.

Should she have put herself in the situation?

Does her putting herself in the situation mitigate his culpability? No. But she, absolutely, could have avoided the situation. Unfortunately, it’s no longer stylish to talk about that part.

ON THE OTHER HAND…does a woman who dresses seductively share some responsibility if she is pulled off of the street and forcibly sexually assaulted by a complete stranger? No. Absolutely not.

 

[Tenofovir]

Exactly. A woman may dress provocatively because she wants consensual sex, even a one-night stand with a stranger or paid sex, or wants men to lust after her.

Yes. However, there are cases where a woman has consensual sex with a man and later accuses him of rape. Alternatively, a woman may not want a one night stand with a man although she may ‘tease’ him, but after an evening of drinking gets him to the point that he no longer has self control. Now the woman is not totally at fault here but often enough she could get a weak willed man drunk (and most men become weak willed when drunk anyway) and he could end up raping her although in his mind it is consensual and he’d never do such a think had he not been drunk. She could be drunk herself and in the morning she may end up regretting what she did and to save face accuse the man of rape. People do stupid things when they are under the influence. Saying this, of course rape is wrong, sinful, criminal and evil. However, sometimes the man might be less to blame than we assume. Certain behaviours increase a woman’s (or man’s) risk of being raped - such as engaging in provocative behaviours especially when alcohol is involved or engaging with shady characters.

 

[Tenofovir]

Exactly. A woman may dress provocatively because she wants consensual sex, even a one-night stand with a stranger or paid sex, or wants men to lust after her.

Yes. However, there are cases where a woman has consensual sex with a man and later accuses him of rape. Alternatively, a woman may not want a one night stand with a man although she may ‘tease’ him, but after an evening of drinking gets him to the point that he no longer has self control. Now the woman is not totally at fault here but often enough she could get a weak willed man drunk (and most men become weak willed when drunk anyway) and he could end up raping her although in his mind it is consensual and he’d never do such a think had he not been drunk. She could be drunk herself and in the morning she may end up regretting what she did and to save face accuse the man of rape. People do stupid things when they are under the influence. Saying this, of course rape is wrong, sinful, criminal and evil. However, sometimes the man might be less to blame than we assume. Certain behaviours increase a woman’s (or man’s) risk of being raped - such as engaging in provocative behaviours especially when alcohol is involved or engaging with shady characters.

 

[Sister_Angel]

It is good to see how others see us in this thread. There were a lot of good answers and opinions but the real answer to this question should only be of one.

Question: are women to blame for being raped if they were wearing revealing clothing according to teaching? NO!

It has nothing to do with teaching of the Catholic church as you know there are a lot of people outside the church that do not know what we teach and it should be taught ongoing more and more in the church, and classes RCIA and even Vacation bible school You cannot teach enough of a good thing.If we set the example to others then they might want to be like we are and dress the proper way themselves. We cannot force them to do this but our prayers and understanding for these people are in fact the very heart of our teachings, Love the sinner hate the sin.I pray for all woman and children all over the world to become more Christ like in all they do and to come to the full knowledge of Christ. Blessings

 

[Orleans_Attny]

I read this quote on a Catholic website explaining teachings of the Church -

scripturecatholic.com/modest_dress.html

Does this imply that women are to blame if they are raped while wearing immodest dress? I may not know a lot about Catholicism but it seems to be implying so here. I don’t know which is more likely to be insulting to people - the suggestion that men are sexual creatures who can’t help themselves, or that women who wear short skirts are asking for it.

I’m not sure if that was a serious question. But the real answer is: **Of course not. **

Pax,
OA

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Now the woman is not totally at fault here but often enough she could get a weak willed man drunk (and most men become weak willed when drunk anyway) and he could end up raping her although in his mind it is consensual and he’d never do such a think had he not been drunk. She could be drunk herself and in the morning she may end up regretting what she did and to save face accuse the man of rape.

Hmm, seems the thread is wandering a little OT, but I am finding it disturbing that there are posters who think it “often” happens that a woman has consensual sex and then falsely accuses a man of rape to “save face”. I’m not saying that doesn’t happen at all, but I suspect there are many, many more cases of rape that are not reported, than reported cases of rape that turn out to be a false accusation.

Does her putting herself in the situation mitigate his culpability? No. But she, absolutely, could have avoided the situation. Unfortunately, it’s no longer stylish to talk about that part.

ON THE OTHER HAND…does a woman who dresses seductively share some responsibility if she is pulled off of the street and forcibly sexually assaulted by a complete stranger? No. Absolutely not.

And one reason many women don’t report rape, especially if it is a “date” or acquaintance rape, is because of attitudes like the above, that only violent stranger rape is “real” rape and that if a woman gets raped while on a date, or by a friend, etc., that it doesn’t really count as a rape, that it was probably just a misunderstanding, or that the woman probably had consensual sex, regretted it in the morning, and decided to throw the man under the bus by crying rape. Such an action would be sinful and wrong on the part of the woman, and I think most women would never think of doing such a thing, much as most men would never think of committing rape.

Also, is it just me or have people noticed a change in how cases of alleged sexual assault, especially against famous celebrities, are reported? In both the Kobe Bryant and Ben Roethlisberger cases the woman alleging rape was constantly referred to as “the accuser”, not “alleged victim”. Now, in the “Big Ben” case the woman just sued him civilly for money and never filed charges, so I can see people being suspicious of her motives. But in the Kobe case, the woman kept being called “the accuser” even before discrepancies showed up in the story. I’m sure the Duke fiasco contributed to the backlash, as well. It just seems that when a famous celebrity is accused of rape, the initial reaction isn’t “oh wow how horrible did he really do it”, but “no way he could have done it, the woman’s probably just looking to be paid off”.

In cases like that, there’s often a comment thrown in about how said celebrity “doesn’t NEED to rape anyone” because women are throwing themselves at him asking for consensual sex, anyway. Which of course shows a total misunderstanding of what rape is about. But it seems some people think, again, that only violent stranger rape is real rape and that date rape is probably just the man getting mixed signals and misinterpreting them, and that he was just looking for sex, not specifically forced sex. Also, it seems many people think only losers and people who are criminals anyway commit rape. An all-American athlete, or the married guy with kids who lives in my apartment building? No way they could commit rape!

Honestly, the Kobe case scared me. Until then, I’d naively believed that rape shield laws were actually worth the paper they were written on, but the message I got from that case was that if I was raped by someone, the defense will try to make the trial about me, and try to put me on trial, basically accusing me of committing a crime (perjury). If someone offered me money to make it all go away, I honestly would be tempted to take it. Or, I’d be tempted to not even report the rape in the first place. But that wouldn’t mean I’m not any less a rape victim.

 

[pnewton]

Honestly, the Kobe case scared me. Until then, I’d naively believed that rape shield laws were actually worth the paper they were written on, but the message I got from that case was that if I was raped by someone, the defense will try to make the trial about me, and try to put me on trial, basically accusing me of committing a crime (perjury). If someone offered me money to make it all go away, I honestly would be tempted to take it. Or, I’d be tempted to not even report the rape in the first place. But that wouldn’t mean I’m not any less a rape victim.

I can surely understand why you wouldn’t want to. Unfortunately, we simply must allow a hundred guilty rapists to go free rather than wrongly convict one person. This means that a person accused of any crime must be allowed to defend themself, even if it is painful for the victim. I would never judge any victim who didn’t want to face the legal system.

 

[viveret]

For the truly cunning and committed rapist, the mode of dress of the victim (woman or child) is irrelevant.
They want their dose of power, and it doesn’t matter to them who they subdue, or how they’re dressed, to get it.
Rape is about power, violence, cruelty, and the sense that one is subduing another. If you think sexual attraction factors in, it is perhaps 1/100th of 1 percent of the act.

 

[markomalley]

Does her putting herself in the situation mitigate his culpability? No. But she, absolutely, could have avoided the situation. Unfortunately, it’s no longer stylish to talk about that part.

You are putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say.

There is such a thing as date rape. There is such a thing as acquaintance rape.

Those are forcible assaults.

There is such a thing as “regret” rape also. This article, in a teen magazine, written by a female, talks about it a bit. And then there is this article, also written by a female (Kathryn Holmquist), that advises parents about the proclivities of young, Irish girls:
Some 15- and 16-year-old girls play a game in the relatively-controlled environment of the disco, in which they give each other a challenge to get off with a certain number of boys. (This game has been going on for 30 years, so nobody’s shocked). Usually it’s five - although I’m told that the gold standard is 20. Watching each other, the girls line the boys up and get off with them one by one. We’re not talking pecks on the cheek. We’re talking full body contact, deep kissing, hands up the skirt - the whole foreplay fantasy. The girls have an illusion of control, because the disco is a “safe” environment.

When the action moves to the uncontrolled environment of a car, a park or a private home, the rules blur. When a boy goes “too far”, this is date rape.
Or you have this piece in Salon (written by Jessabelle) (caution:language NSFW) that very graphically discusses a number of different potential scnearios involving alcohol and sex.

And, of course, you have the assortment of blog entries that say that a female is unable to consent to sex when she has alcohol in her bloodstream so if she decides the next morning that it was rape, it was rape, and the guy should have known better.

And, so far as I can tell from my little bit of research, apparently, the latter is the current standard of the law: that is, that if the female is in any way impaired by a substance (Or the “bottom” in a male-male relationship or the femme in a lesbian relationship), she is unable to give consent and, by rights, can charge the male with rape (and eventually have him convicted) the next morning. BTW, we’re not talking slipping the girl (or the bottom or the femme) a mickey. We’re not talking fall down black out vomiting drunk. We’re talking **any **level of intoxication, presumably even a single drink…if the prosecutor wanted to push it that far. (see this Washington City Paper article with an abundance of links)

Frankly, during my younger years back in the 70s and early 80s, I could see that, under this standard, well over 50% of the males (tops, doms) could be considered potential rapists. Because people drank, people got high, and sex usually followed. It was just part of the milieu. Not saying it was right…but that’s the way it was.

Even today, this concept means that 99% of the males in Cancun or Daytona on Spring Break are potential rapists, if only the girls would have the guts to charge them (why? because they’re virtually all drunk and they’re virtually all having sex).

Sexually promiscuous? yes. Hedonists? yes. Going to hell if they don’t show contrition and repent? yes. But rapists?

According to some of the comments here and according to some of the comments on the feminist blogosphere and according to state, supposedly, of the law…yes. Because a woman (bottom, femme) who is intoxicated to any degree is unable to give consent. And, in the absence of a full consent made with the freedom of the will and full knowledge…then it’s rape.

Bottom line for males (tops, doms): if your perspective sex partner has had anything to drink, stay away.

I’m sorry…but I just have a really, really hard time with that concept.

 

[markomalley]

Oh, and one other thought

The next time my wife and I sit down with a bottle of wine next to our fireplace, I will have to rebuff any amorous advances she makes to me. Why? Well, since spousal rape is now possible, and since any degree of intoxication nullifies a woman’s ability to give consent, that means that she would be unable to consent to sex…no matter how badly she wants it. After all, I’m no rapist.

She’s going to be so mad…

 

[lobster]

You are putting words in my mouth that I didn’t say.

There is such a thing as date rape. There is such a thing as acquaintance rape.

Those are forcible assaults.

There is such a thing as “regret” rape also. This article, in a teen magazine, written by a female, talks about it a bit. And then there is this article, also written by a female (Kathryn Holmquist), that advises parents about the proclivities of young, Irish girls:
Some 15- and 16-year-old girls play a game in the relatively-controlled environment of the disco, in which they give each other a challenge to get off with a certain number of boys. (This game has been going on for 30 years, so nobody’s shocked). Usually it’s five - although I’m told that the gold standard is 20. Watching each other, the girls line the boys up and get off with them one by one. We’re not talking pecks on the cheek. We’re talking full body contact, deep kissing, hands up the skirt - the whole foreplay fantasy. The girls have an illusion of control, because the disco is a “safe” environment.

When the action moves to the uncontrolled environment of a car, a park or a private home, the rules blur. When a boy goes “too far”, this is date rape.
Or you have this piece in Salon (written by Jessabelle) (caution:language NSFW) that very graphically discusses a number of different potential scnearios involving alcohol and sex.

And, of course, you have the assortment of blog entries that say that a female is unable to consent to sex when she has alcohol in her bloodstream so if she decides the next morning that it was rape, it was rape, and the guy should have known better.

And, so far as I can tell from my little bit of research, apparently, the latter is the current standard of the law: that is, that if the female is in any way impaired by a substance (Or the “bottom” in a male-male relationship or the femme in a lesbian relationship), she is unable to give consent and, by rights, can charge the male with rape (and eventually have him convicted) the next morning. BTW, we’re not talking slipping the girl (or the bottom or the femme) a mickey. We’re not talking fall down black out vomiting drunk. We’re talking **any **level of intoxication, presumably even a single drink…if the prosecutor wanted to push it that far. (see this Washington City Paper article with an abundance of links)

Frankly, during my younger years back in the 70s and early 80s, I could see that, under this standard, well over 50% of the males (tops, doms) could be considered potential rapists. Because people drank, people got high, and sex usually followed. It was just part of the milieu. Not saying it was right…but that’s the way it was.

Even today, this concept means that 99% of the males in Cancun or Daytona on Spring Break are potential rapists, if only the girls would have the guts to charge them (why? because they’re virtually all drunk and they’re virtually all having sex).

Sexually promiscuous? yes. Hedonists? yes. Going to hell if they don’t show contrition and repent? yes. But rapists?

According to some of the comments here and according to some of the comments on the feminist blogosphere and according to state, supposedly, of the law…yes. Because a woman (bottom, femme) who is intoxicated to any degree is unable to give consent. And, in the absence of a full consent made with the freedom of the will and full knowledge…then it’s rape.

Bottom line for males (tops, doms): if your perspective sex partner has had anything to drink, stay away.

I’m sorry…but I just have a really, really hard time with that concept.

Great insights, thank you for sharing. As far as the part about the games 15 and 16 year old girls play, I can assure the games college girls play makes those ones seem rather innocent.

 

[Fone_Bone_2001]

No you are very much mistaken. An idea is never vile and reprehensible. It is either right or wrong.

No, you are very much mistaken. Many ideas have a moral dimension. To give extreme examples: “Do unto others as you would have them do unto you” is morally positive; Hitler’s idea that Jews are sub-human vermin that ought to be exterminated is morally repugnant.

To say otherwise is to be motivated by emotion rather than reason.

(a) Emotion has its place, too. Ever read The Abolition of Man by C.S. Lewis, particularly the first chapter? Reason needs the spirited element in man to hold proper sway in the first place.

(b) Morality matters as much as reason, and moral good merits a positive emotional reaction, whereas immorality merits a negative emotional reaction. Again, this all reminds me of The Abolition of Man and the literary Romantic worldview that Lewis quotes so often in that wonderful book.

This is totally irrelevant. Rape is wrong because it is a grievous matter involving the violation of the sacredness of a person’s body. Whatever the motivation, it is still grievous matter. Degree of culpability is dependent on several factors as with all grievous acts.

The thing I said to which you responded with the above words was, “Rape is about violence more than sex.” As you should be able to see, nothing in that statement of mine disagrees with or implies disagreement with your entirely correct claim that “whatever the motivation, it is still grievous matter.” Please never again imply that I think certain motivations mitigate moral culpability for rape. I do not.

And just so you know, my claim about rape was far from “totally irrelevant” to the OP to which it was addressed. I was explaining why it makes no sense to suggest that a woman implicitly invites rape by some behavior that is sexually enticing.

[Lysistrata] is a morally reprehensible play (etc.)

Whether or not it is morally reprehensible is irrelevant. I never implied that withholding sex from one’s spouse is morally acceptable. I was simply giving an example that shows how rape is not actually about sex - the example being Lysistrata’s explanation that sex itself could never be enjoyable for a man who is forcing it on a woman.

That said, I don’t think it’s a morally reprehensible play. It doesn’t endorse the idea of a sex boycott; all of Aristophanes’ plays are deliberately fantastical, and in fact he wrote many of them to address and criticize the moral decay of his time. Have you heard of Franciscan University of Steubenville? A Catholic university renowned for its orthodox academics and truly Catholic spiritual atmosphere? Well, I’m a graduate, and I first read Lysistrata for the Honors class there. FUS is obviously quite the opposite of a bastion of godlessness.

Yes. However, there are cases where a woman has consensual sex with a man and later accuses him of rape. Alternatively, a woman may not want a one night stand with a man although she may ‘tease’ him, but after an evening of drinking gets him to the point that he no longer has self control. Now the woman is not totally at fault here but often enough she could get a weak willed man drunk (and most men become weak willed when drunk anyway) and he could end up raping her although in his mind it is consensual and he’d never do such a think had he not been drunk.

But if you willingly drink enough to temporarily eliminate your free will, culpability remains for the acts you commit while under the influence.

Besides, is this a realistic scenario? It’s a genuine question; I really don’t know as I’ve never been really drunk, but my impression is that “Drink provokes the desire, but takes away the performance,” to quote Shakespeare.

 

[ToeInTheWater]

Hmm, having trouble sleeping tonight…so I will respond to markomalley. Though I think the issue being discussed here is quite different than the original question posed by the OP. I agree some of the cases being discussed here do seem absurd, especially if the man and woman are equally intoxicated. I remember that when I was an adolescent, my mother warned me to watch out for men who’d try to ply me with drinks, since they could be trying to take advantage of me. She didn’t, however, call such men potential rapists. You could argue that perhaps, by embracing the sexual revolution, women (and men too) have pretty much reduced the rules about sex to only one, that of consent. So, as long as the sex is consensual, then anything goes, and the only way to impose any restrictions on sexual behavior is to define that behavior as rape.

I think that some of this is really a legal issue/policy issue than a moral issue. That is, what should society deem to be criminal behavior worthy of prosecution not to mention possible conviction, sentencing, a prison term where the convicted is at high risk of being raped himself, and likely a requirement to register as a sex offender? And what is simply bad behavior that should be societally discouraged, but not be deemed criminal?

I think most of us would agree that rape accomplished through either sheer overpowering physical force, or the threat of force such as showing the victim a gun or knife, should be criminal. On the other hand, if that is the only legal criterion for rape, then even the man who in a premeditated manner uses a date-rape drug would not be able to be prosecuted. I wonder if it would be possible to write a law that specifically criminalizes that kind of conduct, while not criminalizing a man “taking advantage of” a woman who is intoxicated enough that her judgment is impaired, but not so intoxicated that she is totally passed out?

And what about the whole idea of statutory rape? Since if physical force or threat immediate physical force was the only criterion for rape, then a 40 year old having sex with a 14 year old would not count as rape, Take that to the logical extreme, though, and a 30 year old having sex with an 8 year old wouldn’t count as rape either, as long as physical force wasn’t used. Obviously, the law has to determine that people of a certain age do not have the capacity to consent. Choosing that age, unfortunately, is always going to be arbitrary. Also, just because someone is over the age of consent doesn’t mean they have the ability to consent, either. Contrary to some stereotypes, mentally disabled adults do have sexual urges, and many act on them. Some are even married. So how mentally disabled would someone have to be, for it to be criminal to have sex with the person?

So, I agree that there is some grey area between behavior that is immoral and sinful and behavior that is criminal. But again, I think this issue is far afield from the original topic.

 

[Tenofovir]

But if you willingly drink enough to temporarily eliminate your free will, culpability remains for the acts you commit while under the influence.

Drinking is part of the culture, isn’t it? People may not intend to force anyone to have sexual intercourse while sober, and their motivation to drink may not be to make the other person of themselves socially disinhibited to have sex but may be to ‘liven up’ the atmosphere or as said, it’s part of the culture. People drink at parties and in clubs.

Besides, is this a realistic scenario? It’s a genuine question; I really don’t know as I’ve never been really drunk, but my impression is that “Drink provokes the desire, but takes away the performance,” to quote Shakespeare.

There are different levels of intoxication. Your performance may be adequate but your judgment may not. I think this is a realistic scenario as alcohol does increase the risk of sexually dangerous behaviours. If someone gets her partner intoxicated and continues to lead him on (and just her presence may be enough to be construed as ‘leading him on’), it is more likely to lead to forced sexual intercourse than if both were level headed (i.e. more sober). In this regard the potential victim of rape can do something to avert it: leave her semi-intoxicated partner to sober up or avoid such scenarios or avoid such a partner.
The fault is still with the one who is drunk but the victim could easily have avoided the situation.

It’s the same with driving under the influence of alcohol. You may be sober enough to operate the vehicle but you’re more likely to take risks on the road and your reaction time will be worse.

 

[markomalley]

And what about the whole idea of statutory rape? Since if physical force or threat immediate physical force was the only criterion for rape, then a 40 year old having sex with a 14 year old would not count as rape, Take that to the logical extreme, though, and a 30 year old having sex with an 8 year old wouldn’t count as rape either, as long as physical force wasn’t used. Obviously, the law has to determine that people of a certain age do not have the capacity to consent. Choosing that age, unfortunately, is always going to be arbitrary. Also, just because someone is over the age of consent doesn’t mean they have the ability to consent, either. Contrary to some stereotypes, mentally disabled adults do have sexual urges, and many act on them. Some are even married. So how mentally disabled would someone have to be, for it to be criminal to have sex with the person?

So, I agree that there is some grey area between behavior that is immoral and sinful and behavior that is criminal. But again, I think this issue is far afield from the original topic.

Think about this, though: technically, a 19 year old high school senior (yes, although rare, there are 19 year old seniors) could, in many jurisdictions, be guilty of statutory rape and be labeled a sexual predator for life if he had sex with a 15 year old high school freshman. That should give one pause.

On the other hand, in Slovenia, a 50 year old could have sex with a 15 year old and it would be perfectly legal (age of consent is 15 years old). On the other hand, in Estonia, the age of consent is 14. In Japan, it’s 13 (although certain prefectures have higher limits).

Although the thought of a 50 year old having sex with a 16, 15, 14, or 13 year old is really disgusting and I think the perv belongs in jail (or worse), however, there are realistic implications.

20 year old soldier works in the Pentagon. He goes out on a Friday night to an underage-friendly club (no alcohol or drugs involved). He meets a young lady who looks and acts 18. When asked, she is a freshman at NOVA. They hook up. Next day, he finds out, courtesy of the cops, that she wasn’t a freshman at NOVA. She was a freshman in high school. The girl’s parents, upon finding out what happened, send the cops after him. He is arrested, jailed, convicted, thrown out of the military, and must register as a sex offender for life – of course, no responsible employer will hire him, because they all check the sex offender database as part of their pre-employment screens.

Let’s try a different scenario.

20 year old airman stationed at Misawa Air Base, Japan. He goes out on a Friday night to an underage-friendly club (no alcohol or drugs involved). He meets a young lady who looks and acts 15. He knows she’s 15 at the time. When asked, she is a freshman in high school . They hook up. No problems. He continues his assignment, gets a promotion, and moves onto his next assignment and has a great military career.

Can you see the problem with that?

Am I condoning 50 year olds having sex with 8 year olds? Hardly.

But look at the above scenario. It has happened. Is that 20 year old a rapist? Should he be on the sex offender register for life?

You might say yes. I, personally, would have a problem with that.

 

[mommamaree]

Think about this, though: technically, a 19 year old high school senior (yes, although rare, there are 19 year old seniors) could, in many jurisdictions, be guilty of statutory rape and be labeled a sexual predator for life if he had sex with a 15 year old high school freshman. That should give one pause.

On the other hand, in Slovenia, a 50 year old could have sex with a 15 year old and it would be perfectly legal (age of consent is 15 years old). On the other hand, in Estonia, the age of consent is 14. In Japan, it’s 13 (although certain prefectures have higher limits).

Although the thought of a 50 year old having sex with a 16, 15, 14, or 13 year old is really disgusting and I think the perv belongs in jail (or worse), however, there are realistic implications.

20 year old soldier works in the Pentagon. He goes out on a Friday night to an underage-friendly club (no alcohol or drugs involved). He meets a young lady who looks and acts 18. When asked, she is a freshman at NOVA. They hook up. Next day, he finds out, courtesy of the cops, that she wasn’t a freshman at NOVA. She was a freshman in high school. The girl’s parents, upon finding out what happened, send the cops after him. He is arrested, jailed, convicted, thrown out of the military, and must register as a sex offender for life – of course, no responsible employer will hire him, because they all check the sex offender database as part of their pre-employment screens.

Let’s try a different scenario.

20 year old airman stationed at Misawa Air Base, Japan. He goes out on a Friday night to an underage-friendly club (no alcohol or drugs involved). He meets a young lady who looks and acts 15. He knows she’s 15 at the time. When asked, she is a freshman in high school . They hook up. No problems. He continues his assignment, gets a promotion, and moves onto his next assignment and has a great military career.

Can you see the problem with that?

Am I condoning 50 year olds having sex with 8 year olds? Hardly.

But look at the above scenario. It has happened. Is that 20 year old a rapist? Should he be on the sex offender register for life?

You might say yes. I, personally, would have a problem with that.

You present a good argument here, but my only response is that fornication is fornication. It is all sinful, but is acceptable in varying degrees to societies around the world. Women and men who choose to engage in acts of fornication should be totally apprised of the laws surrounding fornication in the area in which they live, and they should follow them carefully. And really, how hard is it to ask to see an ID before climbing into bed with someone? Or perhaps even a medical history that demonstrates the person is STD-free? Casual sex should not be without consequences, legal or social, in my opinion. We should not insulate those who choose to engage in risky sexual behaviors, nor should we pity those who stupidly get themselves caught up in a situation where a crime occurs. I’m not saying we should drag them out into the streets and stone them, so don’t get me wrong. I just think that justifying certain behaviors because of various fornication laws around the world has no place in Catholic discussions.

 

[bingbang]

And really, how hard is it to ask to see an ID before climbing into bed with someone? Or perhaps even a medical history that demonstrates the person is STD-free?

LOL…I am sure that would go over well. “Uhhh, before we do this, can I just see some ID and your medical history?”