Sign up with GoogleOk, 3 things here:
1) You still haven't explained what you meant by that sentence. Maybe you think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill by focusing on that one line but I can't see any other way of interpreting it other than "This woman met a man in a bar and got in his car" ... implies - why else would she do that if not for sex... Obviously I'm misinterpreting what you said but until you clarify that statement it's the only way I can understand it.
2) I never intended to imply that you - Turtle - are somehow trying to justify rape or a "women ask for it" attitude. If that's what came across then I apologise.
3)
Actually, I choose to pick both, since, although you seem to think it has to be one or the other they are not actually contradictory.
First point, is it reasonable that the guy "had a nap afterwards" and handed her the car keys?
Yes it is:
They met at a bar, which means there is a high possibility that either one or both of them were intoxicated. Considering the man fell asleep and gave her the keys indicates he was probably intoxicated.
Aside from that, your first option is:
(A) More like the behaviour of someone who thought he'd just had consensual sex
There is a big difference between thinking it's consensual and it actually being consensual. Anyone who works with rape victims can tell you about the myths men tell themselves to justify rape:
No actually means yes,
she didn't fight back,
girls like it rough,
she was making out kissing me so obviously she wanted sex,
she didn't scream,
she's a slut - everyones had her,
silence means yes,
she got in my car - what else was she expecting,
i was drunk - so I'm not responsible,
she shouldn't have got drunk,
she was dressed like a slut,
she can't change her mind halfway,
etc, etc...
Just because he thought it was consensual doesn't mean it was...
The idea that she consented to sex and then afterwards regretted it and then decides to lay a rape charge, although possible, is far more improbable and unreasnable, imho, than the simple story, they were drunk, he raped her (maybe thinking she was consenting, maybe not) and then passed out, allowing her to turn him in.
(I think we can both agree that the article doesn't contain enough information to actually decide either way, but we can assume that the judge in the case had a lot more information and detail)
1) You still haven't explained what you meant by that sentence. Maybe you think I'm making a mountain out of a molehill by focusing on that one line but I can't see any other way of interpreting it other than "This woman met a man in a bar and got in his car" ... implies - why else would she do that if not for sex... Obviously I'm misinterpreting what you said but until you clarify that statement it's the only way I can understand it.
2) I never intended to imply that you - Turtle - are somehow trying to justify rape or a "women ask for it" attitude. If that's what came across then I apologise.
3)
Actually, I choose to pick both, since, although you seem to think it has to be one or the other they are not actually contradictory.
First point, is it reasonable that the guy "had a nap afterwards" and handed her the car keys?
Yes it is:
They met at a bar, which means there is a high possibility that either one or both of them were intoxicated. Considering the man fell asleep and gave her the keys indicates he was probably intoxicated.
Aside from that, your first option is:
(A) More like the behaviour of someone who thought he'd just had consensual sex
There is a big difference between thinking it's consensual and it actually being consensual. Anyone who works with rape victims can tell you about the myths men tell themselves to justify rape:
No actually means yes,
she didn't fight back,
girls like it rough,
she was making out kissing me so obviously she wanted sex,
she didn't scream,
she's a slut - everyones had her,
silence means yes,
she got in my car - what else was she expecting,
i was drunk - so I'm not responsible,
she shouldn't have got drunk,
she was dressed like a slut,
she can't change her mind halfway,
etc, etc...
Just because he thought it was consensual doesn't mean it was...
The idea that she consented to sex and then afterwards regretted it and then decides to lay a rape charge, although possible, is far more improbable and unreasnable, imho, than the simple story, they were drunk, he raped her (maybe thinking she was consenting, maybe not) and then passed out, allowing her to turn him in.
(I think we can both agree that the article doesn't contain enough information to actually decide either way, but we can assume that the judge in the case had a lot more information and detail)
