GreekChat.com Forums

GreekChat.com Forums (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/index.php)
-   News & Politics (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/forumdisplay.php?f=207)
-   -   Ohio teens guilty of rape, face year-plus in jail (https://greekchat.com/gcforums/showthread.php?t=133081)

NinjaPoodle 03-17-2013 12:44 PM
Ohio teens guilty of rape, face year-plus in jail
 
Yahoo news
http://news.yahoo.com/ohio-teens-gui...6028--spt.html
STEUBENVILLE, Ohio (AP) — Two members of the high school football team that is the pride of Steubenville were found guilty Sunday of raping a drunken 16-year-old girl in a case that bitterly divided the Rust Belt city and led to accusations of a cover-up to protect the community's athletes.

*click link to read the rest.*

IrishLake 03-17-2013 12:53 PM
Good. The evidence was overwhelmingly against their favor. The real facts (pictures, copies of texts, witness accounts) were made known to the public a week or so ago. These boys were lucky they were tried in a juvenile court.

AOII Angel 03-17-2013 01:03 PM
Parents really need to teach their boys that having sexual contact with a female that is intoxicated is fraught with risk. She may not be able to think clearly enough to consent, and they may rightly be looking at a rape charge. Having sex with a female who is unconscious is unconscionable. The baseline state of consent is NOT yes.

IndianaSigKap 03-17-2013 02:25 PM
Since they were tried as juveniles, will they have to register as sex offenders?

indygphib 03-17-2013 03:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndianaSigKap (Post 2208617)
Since they were tried as juveniles, will they have to register as sex offenders?
According to this article, yes.

IndianaSigKap 03-17-2013 03:18 PM
Wow, this means that they cannot major in education in college, no coaching for them. They will show up on the sex offender finder online in their dorms, I am sure the co-eds will not be thrilled. Can't play football in college bc they can't be in a locker room with any player who might not be 18 yet. They never thought about the ramifications of their actions one bit, I am sure they never pictured it ending up like this. I know that poor girl will never be the same, but I hope the decision brings her some peace.

DeltaBetaBaby 03-17-2013 03:28 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2208612)
Parents really need to teach their boys that having sexual contact with a female that is intoxicated is fraught with risk. She may not be able to think clearly enough to consent, and they may rightly be looking at a rape charge. Having sex with a female who is unconscious is unconscionable. The baseline state of consent is NOT yes.
I'm a believer that SCHOOLS should teach this stuff, as well. Abstinence-only sex ed is such a failure, and even the states with real sex ed are teaching how to avoid pregnancy and STI's. Enthusiastic consent and how to talk about sex with your partner really needs to be part of the curriculum.

Munchkin03 03-17-2013 04:01 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby (Post 2208627)
I'm a believer that SCHOOLS should teach this stuff, as well. Abstinence-only sex ed is such a failure, and even the states with real sex ed are teaching how to avoid pregnancy and STI's. Enthusiastic consent and how to talk about sex with your partner really needs to be part of the curriculum.
After an early 90s lawsuit, my college teaches this as part of orientation. Obviously it needs to be taught earlier, but it's a good start.

AOII Angel 03-17-2013 05:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby (Post 2208627)
I'm a believer that SCHOOLS should teach this stuff, as well. Abstinence-only sex ed is such a failure, and even the states with real sex ed are teaching how to avoid pregnancy and STI's. Enthusiastic consent and how to talk about sex with your partner really needs to be part of the curriculum.
I agree whole heartedly with you.

DeltaBetaBaby 03-17-2013 05:34 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2208643)
I agree whole heartedly with you.
Plus, I'm a fan of good sex, and that's a nice side effect of "yes means yes". Sadly, the same forces who want abstinence only are also opposed to the idea that sex is fun.

AOII Angel 03-17-2013 06:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby (Post 2208646)
Plus, I'm a fan of good sex, and that's a nice side effect of "yes means yes". Sadly, the same forces who want abstinence only are also opposed to the idea that sex is fun.
Yes, and many times they are the same group that think that women are asking to be raped.

DubaiSis 03-17-2013 06:34 PM
Well, you know the human body has a way of shutting that whole thing down...

StealthMode 03-17-2013 07:02 PM
1. DBB are you seriously blaming abstinence-only sex ed for this? While I agree that sex ed should definitely include consent and open communication between partners/potential partners, I have a hard time believing the former is actually what you're implying because that's such a big jump. Please clarify.

2. I didn't realize that "digital penetration" counted as part of the definition of rape. I thought it would fall under molestation or lewd acts but, as it is some type of penetration, that makes sense. Legal buffs, has it always been included?

MysticCat 03-17-2013 07:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthMode (Post 2208657)
I didn't realize that "digital penetration" counted as part of the definition of rape. I thought it would fall under molestation or lewd acts but, as it is some type of penetration, that makes sense. Legal buffs, has it always been included?
What constitutes rape varies from jurisdiction to jurisdiction and has, as I understand it, varied throughout history.

Munchkin03 03-17-2013 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthMode (Post 2208657)

2. I didn't realize that "digital penetration" counted as part of the definition of rape. I thought it would fall under molestation or lewd acts but, as it is some type of penetration, that makes sense. Legal buffs, has it always been included?
In most of the articles I've read about this, digital penetration is considered rape in Ohio.

AOII Angel 03-17-2013 09:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchkin03 (Post 2208667)
In most of the articles I've read about this, digital penetration is considered rape in Ohio.
As it should be. Placing a foreign object, should it be a penis, fingers or an inanimate object, in another person's vagina or anus without their consent is rape. Some jurisdictions may not be up to snuff on that, but the object inserted doesn't change the intrusion. You might say "you can't get pregnant with a finger." Men can't get pregnant but CAN be raped.

@Stealthmode, DBB's point about abstinence only education is that it only tells kids to wait until marriage instead of acknowledging the truth that teenagers are sexual beings who are experimenting with sex. It does not take the opportunity to discuss very important topics like consent, inability to form consent due to impairment from alcohol/drugs, etc, safe sex, as well as abstinence. Pretending like the vast majority of Americans aren't practicing pre-Marital sex (and haven't since the dawn of time) is counter productive and has led to high teen pregnancy rates in the states that are pushing abstinence only education.

DeltaBetaBaby 03-17-2013 09:47 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthMode (Post 2208657)
1. DBB are you seriously blaming abstinence-only sex ed for this? While I agree that sex ed should definitely include consent and open communication between partners/potential partners, I have a hard time believing the former is actually what you're implying because that's such a big jump. Please clarify.
No, my comment was in response to a comment that parents should teach their sons about consent. My point is that we need to become a consent culture, all around, as opposed to the status quo, which is rape culture.

And IMO, abstinence-only education DOES contribute to rape culture, because it teaches that "good women don't have sex" and so on. It's a very straight line from there to slut shaming, victim blaming, etc.

As far as this particular incident, anyone with two brain cells they can rub together should be able to figure out that it's immoral to have sex with an unconscious woman, so I'm really speaking more generally about what we are teaching boys and young men.

StealthMode 03-17-2013 10:04 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2208679)
As it should be. Placing a foreign object, should it be a penis, fingers or an inanimate object, in another person's vagina or anus without their consent is rape. Some jurisdictions may not be up to snuff on that, but the object inserted doesn't change the intrusion.
Agreed.
Quote:
@Stealthmode, DBB's point about abstinence only education is that it only tells kids to wait until marriage instead of acknowledging the truth that teenagers are sexual beings who are experimenting with sex. It does not take the opportunity to discuss very important topics like consent, inability to form consent due to impairment from alcohol/drugs, etc, safe sex, as well as abstinence.
This is the part I didn't get--what do the first 2 sentences have to do with each other? What I mean is, why single out abstinence-only programs if even standard or "excellent" sex ed courses do not address the extremely important subject of consent either? Pointing to the former implies that they contribute to the problem more than any other sex ed program which seems to be the message below.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby (Post 2208680)
And IMO, abstinence-only education DOES contribute to rape culture, because it teaches that "good women don't have sex" and so on. It's a very straight line from there to slut shaming, victim blaming, etc.
This is where we disagree--I see this as a very slippery slope argument. It's opposite from what people who push abstinence-only programs tend to say but it's just as fallible (to me) as saying those who get proper sex ed would take it as a green light to sleep with everyone. Both types of programs have their good and bad points. IMO the basic message I get from Ab-only is "Good girls don't have sex before they're women (i.e., graduated, married, however it's defined)." In an ideal world theres, nothing wrong with that expectation but a standard sex ed class operates from a more realistic viewpoint like AOII Angel said. Sometimes, the good girls do have sex before they are women--that fact may fall short of the standard set by the program but that doesn't skip straight to slut shaming.

But you're right about it being EXTREMELY obvious that any sexual act with an unconscious girl is not permissible in any way. Additional education aside, that's a basic question of right and wrong. Even if these 2 were in a school that had NO sex ed at all, a 17-year-old and a 16-year-old would still be expected to know better and act accordingly.

DeltaBetaBaby 03-17-2013 10:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthMode (Post 2208683)
This is where we disagree--I see this as a very slippery slope argument. It's opposite from what people who push abstinence-only programs tend to say but it's just as fallible (to me) as saying those who get proper sex ed would take it as a green light to sleep with everyone.
No, THIS is where you and I disagree: I don't see anything wrong with a "green light to sleep with everyone", assuming consent, risk minimization (condoms and BC), etc.

Munchkin03 03-17-2013 10:13 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2208679)
As it should be. Placing a foreign object, should it be a penis, fingers or an inanimate object, in another person's vagina or anus without their consent is rape. Some jurisdictions may not be up to snuff on that, but the object inserted doesn't change the intrusion. You might say "you can't get pregnant with a finger." Men can't get pregnant but CAN be raped.

@Stealthmode, DBB's point about abstinence only education is that it only tells kids to wait until marriage instead of acknowledging the truth that teenagers are sexual beings who are experimenting with sex. It does not take the opportunity to discuss very important topics like consent, inability to form consent due to impairment from alcohol/drugs, etc, safe sex, as well as abstinence. Pretending like the vast majority of Americans aren't practicing pre-Marital sex (and haven't since the dawn of time) is counter productive and has led to high teen pregnancy rates in the states that are pushing abstinence only education.
I wasn't saying that it shouldn't be--fortunately it was in Ohio; had this happened in another state, all they could have gotten was a slap on the wrist (videotaped documentation notwithstanding). Of course, with the way things are now, no state is going to expand their definition of rape.

This to me is less a failure of abstinence-only sex Ed than a signal that HS athletes are often placed on a pedestal where they feel they can do no wrong. My rants about the failure of abstinence-only sex Ed is for another time.

StealthMode 03-18-2013 01:07 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby (Post 2208685)
No, THIS is where you and I disagree: I don't see anything wrong with a "green light to sleep with everyone", assuming consent, risk minimization (condoms and BC), etc.
I didn't say anything about it being "wrong." The emphasis was on some people making the (incorrect) assumption that if teens are taught how to correctly use birth-control, there is no possible outcome other than they will all immediately start having massive amounts of sex.

Phrozen Sands 03-18-2013 07:23 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby (Post 2208685)
No, THIS is where you and I disagree: I don't see anything wrong with a "green light to sleep with everyone", assuming consent, risk minimization (condoms and BC), etc.
Where I disagree here, condoms, BC, etc. are no guarantee against STDs, so I actually see quite a bit wrong with that, unless I'm misunderstanding your post.

sigmadiva 03-18-2013 08:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthMode (Post 2208683)


This is where we disagree--I see this as a very slippery slope argument. It's opposite from what people who push abstinence-only programs tend to say but it's just as fallible (to me) as saying those who get proper sex ed would take it as a green light to sleep with everyone. Both types of programs have their good and bad points. IMO the basic message I get from Ab-only is "Good girls don't have sex before they're women (i.e., graduated, married, however it's defined)." In an ideal world theres, nothing wrong with that expectation but a standard sex ed class operates from a more realistic viewpoint like AOII Angel said. Sometimes, the good girls do have sex before they are women--that fact may fall short of the standard set by the program but that doesn't skip straight to slut shaming.
I agree with SM here.

Quote:

But you're right about it being EXTREMELY obvious that any sexual act with an unconscious girl is not permissible in any way. Additional education aside, that's a basic question of right and wrong. Even if these 2 were in a school that had NO sex ed at all, a 17-year-old and a 16-year-old would still be expected to know better and act accordingly.
I think this is also a major issue that needs to be addressed separate and apart from rape cases - girls who get sloppy drunk.

I wish there was some way we could instill in girls and young women that they don't have to get drunk to have a good time at a party. I really believe it is a self esteem issue.

sigmadiva 03-18-2013 08:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands (Post 2208709)
... condoms, BC, etc. are no guarantee against STDs, so I actually see quite a bit wrong with that, unless I'm misunderstanding your post.
This. Just because a girl may have all the knowledge about sex-ed and understand her sexuality, I don't think she should use it as a "green-light" for her to have as much sex as she wants. Not understanding the transmission of STD's is extremely dangerous and life threatening. Yes, some forms of birth control can reduce the spread of STDs, but they are not 100%. And, that is only if the birth control methods are used properly.

As I tell my students - genital herpes is FOR LIFE!!!

AOII Angel 03-18-2013 09:12 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchkin03 (Post 2208686)
I wasn't saying that it shouldn't be--fortunately it was in Ohio; had this happened in another state, all they could have gotten was a slap on the wrist (videotaped documentation notwithstanding). Of course, with the way things are now, no state is going to expand their definition of rape.

This to me is less a failure of abstinence-only sex Ed than a signal that HS athletes are often placed on a pedestal where they feel they can do no wrong. My rants about the failure of abstinence-only sex Ed is for another time.
I wasn't saying you were. :) just used your post as a jumping off point for my soapbox.

MysticCat 03-18-2013 09:17 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2208679)
As it should be. Placing a foreign object, should it be a penis, fingers or an inanimate object, in another person's vagina or anus without their consent is rape. Some jurisdictions may not be up to snuff on that, but the object inserted doesn't change the intrusion.
To be clear, just because a jurisdiction doesn't include penetration by a finger or an inanimate object without consent in the legal definition of "rape" doesn't mean that the jurisdiction doesn't criminalize such activity. Where I live, for example, these would fall under the legal definition of "sexual offense." But in terms of felony classification and potential sentencing, there is no difference between first degree rape and sexual offense or second degree rape and second degree sexual offense.

I'm not saying that you'd find the same in every state -- I have no idea one way or the other, though my hunch is that you would find similar laws in most states -- but it's a mistake to assume that just because the laws of a state adhere to a more traditional (and less expansive) legal definition of "rape," that state doesn't also criminalize other actions that might generally be included under a non-legal definition of "rape."

Quote:
Originally Posted by Munchkin03 (Post 2208686)
I wasn't saying that it shouldn't be--fortunately it was in Ohio; had this happened in another state, all they could have gotten was a slap on the wrist (videotaped documentation notwithstanding). Of course, with the way things are now, no state is going to expand their definition of rape.
See above.

AOII Angel 03-18-2013 09:20 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthMode (Post 2208683)
Agreed.


This is the part I didn't get--what do the first 2 sentences have to do with each other? What I mean is, why single out abstinence-only programs if even standard or "excellent" sex ed courses do not address the extremely important subject of consent either? Pointing to the former implies that they contribute to the problem more than any other sex ed program which seems to be the message below.

This is where we disagree--I see this as a very slippery slope argument. It's opposite from what people who push abstinence-only programs tend to say but it's just as fallible (to me) as saying those who get proper sex ed would take it as a green light to sleep with everyone. Both types of programs have their good and bad points. IMO the basic message I get from Ab-only is "Good girls don't have sex before they're women (i.e., graduated, married, however it's defined)." In an ideal world theres, nothing wrong with that expectation but a standard sex ed class operates from a more realistic viewpoint like AOII Angel said. Sometimes, the good girls do have sex before they are women--that fact may fall short of the standard set by the program but that doesn't skip straight to slut shaming.

But you're right about it being EXTREMELY obvious that any sexual act with an unconscious girl is not permissible in any way. Additional education aside, that's a basic question of right and wrong. Even if these 2 were in a school that had NO sex ed at all, a 17-year-old and a 16-year-old would still be expected to know better and act accordingly.
You are missing the point that we discussed ADDING a discussion of consent to a good sex education program. In an abstinence only program, they would NOT be okay with adding this because the baseline assumption is that all students will say no to sex at all times until they get married. No one has suggested that abstinence only education has made people into rapists. We are arguing that it inhibits proper education. I can just imagine the heads rolling and the frothing at the mouth should schools start talking about sexual consent at schools in the South. Oh Lawd!

DeltaBetaBaby 03-18-2013 10:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2208725)
You are missing the point that we discussed ADDING a discussion of consent to a good sex education program. In an abstinence only program, they would NOT be okay with adding this because the baseline assumption is that all students will say no to sex at all times until they get married. No one has suggested that abstinence only education has made people into rapists. We are arguing that it inhibits proper education. I can just imagine the heads rolling and the frothing at the mouth should schools start talking about sexual consent at schools in the South. Oh Lawd!
Right. There's also, when it comes to abstinence-only education, a BIG DIFFERENCE between "abstinence is the only way to be 100% certain that you don't get pregnant or get an STI" and "everyone should 'save' themselves for marriage". The former is a factual statement that should be included in ALL sex-ed, the latter is slut-shaming. I suspect that, depending on your locale, the messages given to young people can be any combination of the two.

StealthMode 03-18-2013 05:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by AOII Angel (Post 2208725)
You are missing the point that we discussed ADDING a discussion of consent to a good sex education program.
Oh no, I didn't miss that--I caught that first and completely agree. But it read to me like DBB started with this then moved into "Abstinence only sex ed is partially to blame for what these boys did." That's not how the post started so I asked her to clarify if that's actually what she meant. Her response clarified that wasn't what she meant but when she said...
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby (Post 2208680)
It's a very straight line from there to slut shaming, victim blaming, etc.
...I disagreed with this because it seemed such a big jump but I acknowledge that was a sidebar separate from the original topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby (Post 2208729)
Right. There's also, when it comes to abstinence-only education, a BIG DIFFERENCE between "abstinence is the only way to be 100% certain that you don't get pregnant or get an STI" and "everyone should 'save' themselves for marriage". The former is a factual statement that should be included in ALL sex-ed, the latter is slut-shaming.
Bingo! Part of the disconnect is we have totally different ideas of "slut-shaming." That second statement is definitely idealistic and not appropriate to push on people unnecessarily in what should be an unbiased arena...but I wouldn't call it "slut-shaming" at all. We were going off different concepts but I totally get where you're coming from now.

AOII Angel 03-18-2013 06:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by StealthMode (Post 2208793)
Oh no, I didn't miss that--I caught that first and completely agree. But it read to me like DBB started with this then moved into "Abstinence only sex ed is partially to blame for what these boys did." That's not how the post started so I asked her to clarify if that's actually what she meant. Her response clarified that wasn't what she meant but when she said...

...I disagreed with this because it seemed such a big jump but I acknowledge that was a sidebar separate from the original topic.

Bingo! Part of the disconnect is we have totally different ideas of "slut-shaming." That second statement is definitely idealistic and not appropriate to push on people unnecessarily in what should be an unbiased arena...but I wouldn't call it "slut-shaming" at all. We were going off different concepts but I totally get where you're coming from now.
Sometimes having these discussions on a message board is tough since you take longer to realize you are on the same page. ;)

NinjaPoodle 03-19-2013 03:59 PM
Related to story:
Teen Girls Charged for Allegedly Threatening Steubenville, Ohio, Rape Victim
By Michael S. James | ABC News Blogs – 8 hours ago

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs...opstories.html

Two teenage girls were charged with menacing today for allegedly threatening the victim in the Steubenville, Ohio, rape case via Twitter and Facebook, Ohio Attorney General Mike DeWine announced.

"Let me be clear," DeWine said in a news release on his website announcing the arrests this evening. "Threatening a teenage rape victim will not be tolerated. If anyone makes a threat verbally or via the Internet, we will take it seriously, we will find you, and we will arrest you."

click link to read the rest.

Ch2tf 03-20-2013 04:26 PM
Seriously, via social media...AGAIN! So is it safe to say this high school doesn't produce the best and the brightest?


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 07:30 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.