Ohio teens guilty of rape, face year-plus in jail

[Munchkin03]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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.

[DeltaBetaBaby]

Originally Posted by StealthMode

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]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

@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.

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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]

Originally Posted by StealthMode

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.

[Phrozen Sands]

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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]

Originally Posted by StealthMode

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.

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.

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by StealthMode

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]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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.

[NinjaPoodle]

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]

Seriously, via social media...AGAIN! So is it safe to say this high school doesn't produce the best and the brightest?