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

[AOII Angel]

Originally Posted by Munchkin03

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]

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.

[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.

[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.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by Phrozen Sands

... 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]

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.

[MysticCat]

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.

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."

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.

See above.

[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.

[StealthMode]

Originally Posted by AOII Angel

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...

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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.

Originally Posted by DeltaBetaBaby

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]

Originally Posted by StealthMode

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.