November 10, 2005

• She assaulted him. Do the crime, do the time.
• Actually, doesn't it just confirm that women have the same rights as men, including the "right" to be punished for unwanted sex?
• Sounds like she raped him. It happens. And no, it's not every guy's fantasy.
• We're linkin' to Aftenposten & Something Awful within a, what, 24-hour period? We're well on our way to being Fark. And, what the hell, I can be a troll.
• I'm not touching this one for a free weekend on pismo beach.
• BOOBIES!
• I think there's a difference when penetration is involved. It may sound silly, but this guy's emotional distress being so severe he needed to send a woman to prison on rape charges sounds sillier.
• funny - women seem to be taking on the masculine - I'm here therefore you want me! Emotional distress or no if it wasn't consensual - then the penalty was correct
• A legal blow ... snicker. To be serious: She crossed a boundary and initiated a sexual act that he did not consent to. In other words she attemted to rape him. Not being him, and not knowing all of the involved details, I cannot judge the quality or validity of his emotional distress.
• I think there's a difference when penetration is involved. It may sound silly, but this guy's emotional distress being so severe he needed to send a woman to prison on rape charges sounds sillier. Any forced, emotionally charged activity can lead to stress, regardless of the sex of the participants; still, I feel 'rape' has such a strong connotation that perhaps it doesn't apply here. Yes, perhaps it's that the combination of penetration plus the whole context of power over the victim that makes it so shocking, but in this case, it's not like he was sodomized or something... ah, good thing I'm not a lawyer.
• Perhaps he was gay or perhaps she looked like uncle fester.
• I can feel sympathy for him and can understand being so upset as to want to press charges but I can't imagine his distress being anything like that of a woman or man who has been penetrated against their own will. To me, to be penetrated would be to lose resistance and that's what would hardest for me to deal with. That said, it's kind of dumb that this woman should be tried under the same law meant to punish the guys who slip girls rophynol at parties and attack women in the park. It's just not the same crime.
• Lots of places have a distinction between rape and sexual assault. I'm sure there are other places that call it all 'rape' but have degrees of seriousness. Yes, I agree that this sexual assault is not as bad as if she violently attacked and subdued him. On the other hand, there are lots of other cases of rape in which there is no pysical violence other than that implicit in the lack of consent to sex. Also, reguardless of the attractiveness of the assailant, if this happened to me I would be upset in the extreme. I mean come on! 'Men want to have sex all the time', ha-ha funny. This guy was assaulted. I find comments such as the 'poor baby!' in this link trivialising to the point where I feel embarrased and offended for the victim.
• Alex Ander says it's kind of dumb that this woman should be tried under the same law meant to punish the guys who slip girls rophynol at parties... Actually, the court seemed to recognise that this rape was not as serious as one that had included penetration. This link suggests that a normal Norwegian sentence for rape with penetration that is not interupted would be 2.5-3 years. This woman got 8 months. Also, now I go over the original link it actually says she was sentenced "according to rape laws" for having had "sexual access". So she may, in fact, have been convicted of some form of sexual assault rather than actual rape.
• This sucks.
• perhaps she looked like uncle fester. Maybe you should leave Fes out of this.
• MonkeyFilter: there's a difference when penetration is involved.
• Yes, he got violated. And I totally understand the men here who say that they would feel the same way. But he's going to have an awfully difficult time finding a woman who will give him a blow job.
• he's going to have an awfully difficult time finding a woman who will give him a blow job. Without asking, while he's asleep.
• The whole 'without asking, while he's asleep' issue has probably been resolved by the prison sentence.
• But he's going to have an awfully difficult time finding a woman who will give him a blow job. Why would that be, Blanky?
• it's not like he was sodomized or something.. Actually--- 1 : copulation with a member of the same sex or with an animal 2 : noncoital and especially anal or oral copulation with a member of the opposite sex
• Ok, ok, it was a bad joke. And what Alex Ander said.
• And what Alex Ander said. The law is s'posed to protect everyone, you he-men you. It's all about the penetration? Keep it in your pants, Jesus. [<--please tag-line one of those last two] It's more about humiliation and loss of power. Not penetration; get over yourself. Let's maintain double-standards for as long as possible. Then we can stagnate in a society which is more conducive to guys who "slip girls rophynol at parties and attack women in the park". Instead of one where women commit the same crimes on an equal rate and maintain equal punishment. And what Chyren said.

• " I find comments such as the 'poor baby!' in this link trivialising to the point where I feel embarrased and offended for the victim."

  Oh please! What's embarrassing and offensive is the idea that being given a blowjob while asleep is in any equivalent to being forcibly penetrated - it's pure PC nonsense to suggest that it is.
• Imagine your grandmother doing it. Still sound like fun?
• What's embarrassing and offensive is the idea that being given a blowjob while asleep is in any equivalent to being forcibly penetrated Ah, but there's two things going on here: quality and degree. I would argue it has the same quality of badness as being forcibly penetrated without having the same degree of badness. That is to say it's humilliating without being as humiliating. It's sexually invasive without being as sexually invasive. It's a betrayal of trust without being as great a betrayal of trust. The courts seem to agree with me on this, as the woman's sentence was no where near as severe as if she had done the same crime with penetration and without interuption. (from jb, who is too lazy to login herself) -

  Okay, for all the people who think this isn't sexual assault or that he overreacted, what would be your reaction to the following scenario? A woman falls asleep at a friend's house, only to wake up to find her friend's boyfriend has pulled down her pants and is licking her gentitals. She freaks out, someone calls the cops, it goes to trial. This situation is a) horrible and creepy, c) totally normal, happens all the time, don't know what all the fuss is about or c) every woman's fantasy. I admit that my first reaction was to think this wasn't as big a deal as if a woman was assaulted. I realised that as soon as I reverse the situation, and I realised that I was being sexist.

• With pleasure... MonkeyFilter: Keep it in your pants, Jesus! / I enjoy reading "Jesus" as the subject, not as an exclamation.
• Yeah, that's what I was thinking, thanks, Sludge.