Woman raped live on Big Brother Africa

[El_Machinae]

what? i think ur being extreme here. because i've been raped a few times by your reasoning.

Hmmn, no, there's a distinction.

You did not legally consent. Legally being the key word. "Rape" is partially in the mind (whether you consider yourself to be a victim). If you feel that you actually were okay with the sex, then don't press charges. It's quite simple.

 

[emzie]

This sounds more like sexual assault, not rape.

I'm sure the trauma is a whole lot less from a sexual assault, rite.

South African law seems to consider the act rape. That's good enough for me.

 

[Aegis]

I'm sure the trauma is a whole lot less from a sexual assault, rite.

Hmm...

Would I rather another man put two of his fingers into my ass for three seconds, or would I rather him stradle me, cornhole me and go buck-wild for half the night?

If you honestly believe they're the same experience and one is not any worse than the other, then I am going to have to disagree with you.

South African law seems to consider the act rape. That's good enough for me.

Because South Africa has a long history of upholding moral standards, amirite?

 

[mark_c]

No, it's not a "common myth", it's the truth. You can't get consent if the person is sufficiently drunk.

This is not true in the UK, at least.

Now, the next day, the person might not mind the drunken sex. It might be the start of a fling (especially if the people were jonesing for each other anyway). But, there was no consent. This means that if the person DOES mind (the next morning) that the sexual contact occured, then the law is quite willing to step in and ruin people's lives.

If the person cannot consent, then the act is illegal whether or not the person minds. Whether it is rape or not is not decided depending on whether the person regrets it the next morning! That's yet another rape myth.

People can be prosecuted even if the person doesn't press charges (and there's good reason for this - the victim may be afraid of doing so, but the criminal is still a danger to society). Consider underage sex - the person can't consent, and it's illegal whether or not the person says they minded. Also S&M is illegal in the UK, because you can't consent to assault for the purpose of pleasure - in the Spanner case, people were sent to prison even though they stood in court and said they wanted it.

Saying that people can't consent when drunk means that adults can't have sex when drunk. It would be illegal for them to do so.

And even if it wasn't common to prosecute unless the person pressed charges, it still means that whenever two adults choose to drink and have sex, they are gambling with their liberty (e.g., imagine people in a long term relationship, but later they fall out, and one of them decides they didn't want it, making it rape). Do we set a time limit as to how long after the person can retroactively decide it was rape or not?

The laws have become quite harsh, because people were using the "but I was drunk too!" excuse too much.

I'm not sure I understand - what if both people were drunk? Are they both guilty, or neither, or only one of them? What if the man's drunk but not the woman?

There are other problems too - how does someone who wants to be law abiding know how much someone else has drunk? Do we need breathlysers?

Just like with drunk driving, society has become harsher with holding you accountable for your actions.

Hang on, with drink driving, it's the person who gets drunk that is punished, because of the danger they pose to others. If it's really just like drunk driving, then it's the drunk person who then has sex who should be prosecuted...

You did not legally consent. Legally being the key word. "Rape" is partially in the mind (whether you consider yourself to be a victim). If you feel that you actually were okay with the sex, then don't press charges. It's quite simple.

Whether it's rape or not is in the mind? That's not a good way of deciding the law. So does it become rape if woody60707 now decides it was rape after all?

 

[EconomistBR]

Rape or sexual assault, it doesn't matter which word is used.
It's a fact that the poor woman was violated and abused. Thanks God that the other woman intervened and told him to stop.

That man is a sexual predator because he did that on Live TV!!!!

 

[Thorvald of Lym]

I never thought I'd find a definite moment when reality T.V. hit a criminal low.

Keep us posted on the legal fallout. Hopefully, Molokwu will win the court case.

 

[mark_c]

This sounds more like sexual assault, not rape.

I presume this was covered by "Under the law in South Africa ... such an act constitutes rape."

In some countries it's rape. In other countries it isn't. In the UK for example, it isn't rape, nor is it sexual assault. It's "Assault by penetration", which carries the same maximum sentence of life, compared with up to 10 years for sexual assault (see http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/20030042.htm ).

 

[LucyDuke]

Rape or sexual assault, it doesn't matter which word is used.
It's a fact that the poor woman was violated and abused. Thanks God that the other woman intervened and told him to stop.

Intervened?

That man is a sexual predator because he did that on Live TV!!!!

Fixed that for you.

 

[Aegis]

Rape or sexual assault, it doesn't matter which word is used.

It matters when the consequences of each are different. I think I have already illustrated how one can be worse than the other. The question is, what would the punishment be if it's assault and not rape?

It's a fact that the poor woman was violated and abused. Thanks God that the other woman intervened and told him to stop.

Ok. It was on television, and she is embarrassed. There's no need to go overboard and be overly dramatic by saying she was abused lol.

On a sidenote, I'd like to play the Devil's Advocate here and ask, if a woman is not held liable for her choices because she is drunk, why is a man held liable for his, when he is drunk?

I understand that this was not the situation on the show, as the girl was clearly passed out.

 

[EconomistBR]

If the person cannot consent, then the act is illegal whether or not the person minds. Whether it is rape or not is not decided depending on whether the person regrets it the next morning! That's yet another rape myth.

I agree,
Sex can only happen with clear consent, without clear consent it has to be assumed that the person doesn't want to have sex.

God forbid I pass out drunk and then wake up the next morning to find out that I was butt raped. It must be horrible, I can't even imagine....ugh!!!!

 

[EconomistBR]

It matters when the consequences of each are different. I think I have already illustrated how one can be worse than the other. The question is, what would the punishment be if it's assault and not rape?

Would you feel better if you found out that you were sexually assaulted instead of raped??
"hey come on, he didn't butt rape you, he just finger-fu*ked you for 15 minutes."

Ok. It was on television, and she is embarrassed. There's no need to go overboard and be overly dramatic by saying she was abused lol.

To play the Devil's Advocate here, if a woman is not held liable for her choices because she is drunk, why is a man held liable for his, when he is drunk?

If somebody shoved a finger up your ass on Live TV, I am sure you would be more than just "embarrassed", try totally humiliated and really really pissed.

You are saying "no need to go overboard" because the abused woman is not your mom or your sister or your daughter.

And I've never seen a man rape someone while passed out

 

[Shadylookin]

Would you feel better if you found out that you were sexually assaulted instead of raped??
"hey come on, he didn't butt rape you, he just finger-fu*ked you for 15 minutes."



If somebody shoved a finger up your ass on Live TV, I am sure you would be more than just "embarrassed", try totally humiliated and really really pissed.

You are saying "no need to go overboard" because the abused woman is not your mom or your sister or your daughter.

And I've never seen a man rape someone while passed out

to be fair the law isn't and shouldn't be based on what the victim and family thinks is appropriate retaliation.

[insert obligatory rape is bad statement here]

 

[Aegis]

Would you feel better if you found out that you were sexually assaulted instead of raped??
"hey come on, he didn't butt rape you, he just finger-fu*ked you for 15 minutes."

That's not the same thing. And yes, I would feel better knowing I wasn't penetrated by 9" of manliness in front of the world to see and bleeding internally because of it.

If somebody shoved a finger up your ass on Live TV, I am sure you would be more than just "embarrassed", try totally humiliated and really really pissed.

And yet, if she was actually raped by him it would be so much worse.

You are saying "no need to go overboard" because the abused woman is not your mom or your sister or your daughter.

Or, I'm looking at this objectively without letting my emotions get the better of me.

Was she violated? Yes. Was she assaulted? Yes. Do I think she was abused or raped? No. There is a difference, and it's not just semantics. Rape and abuse are far worse, imo.

And I've never seen a man rape someone while passed out

You're missing the point. I already said "on a side note" and "I understand that this was not the situation on the show, as the girl was clearly passed out." To reiterate, because your emotions are so inflamed that it's impairing your ability to read properly, a drunk man and a drunk woman can have sex one night, and the following morning the woman can claim that she was not in control of herself because she was drunk and did not consent. Why can the man not claim the same thing?

All of which goes out the window if one of them passes out.

 

[TheBladeRoden]

Whether it's rape or not is in the mind? That's not a good way of deciding the law. So does it become rape if woody60707 now decides it was rape after all?

That's pretty much how it work here.

 

[LightFang]

Well, this is Africa. That's how they roll there. Yeesh.

 

[EconomistBR]

Double post

 

[fishjie]

On a sidenote, I'd like to play the Devil's Advocate here and ask, if a woman is not held liable for her choices because she is drunk, why is a man held liable for his, when he is drunk?

this is so true. complete double standard. its not rape if two people are drunk and have sex. a woman will regret it and try to ruin a man's life by crying rape, but its not. its just that she wasnt responsible enough NOT to get smashed and then NOT whore herself out. i know plenty of women who get really drunk and do NOT have sex with random guys. being drunk is just an excuse to be a slut, and then crying rape is just how they cover it up. its bs.

 

[EconomistBR]

to be fair the law isn't and shouldn't be based on what the victim and family thinks is appropriate retaliation.

You are arguing about something totally different, I've never mentioned "law", I was talking about the "need to go overboard."

That's not the same thing. And yes, I would feel better knowing I wasn't penetrated by 9" of manliness in front of the world to see and bleeding internally because of it.

oh...so you would feel better knowing that you were simply finger-fu*ked for 15 minutes.
I would be equally humiliated and pissed.

And yet, if she was actually raped by him it would be so much worse.

If she had an arm amputed it would still be much worse, what's it's you point??

What matters is that she was abused and as you said yourself, and violated.
I see that you agree that being violated is more than "embarrassing".

Or, I'm looking at this objectively without letting my emotions get the better of me.

Was she violated? Yes. Was she assaulted? Yes. Do I think she was abused or raped? No. There is a difference, and it's not just semantics. Rape and abuse are far worse, imo.

If she was violated then she was abused.
I get the feeling that you trying to play down his action.
There was penetration so she was abused and violated. This is what is relevant. Whether or not he used his penis is irrelevant.

You're missing the point. A drunk man and a drunk woman can have sex one night, and the following morning the woman can claim that she was not in control of herself because she was drunk and did not consent. Why can the man not claim the same thing?

She was passed out, he wasn't. This is a huge difference, had she been awake we wouldn't be talking about it.

 

[El_Machinae]

mdwh : I referenced drunk driving in reference to incidents where both parties are drunk. You can't use the fact that you were drunk to counter a sexual assault charge, even if you both were.

A person can't legally consent to sex while drunk, just like they can't sign a contract.

I know people don't like it, because people want to have drunken sex. But that's why I'm reminding people that it can still get you in heaps of trouble. Don't want trouble? Don't have drunken sex with someone who might change their mind the next day.

 

[Aegis]

oh...so you would feel better knowing that you were simply finger-fu*ked for 15 minutes.
I would be equally humiliated and pissed.

>.> He did not do it for 15 minutes. That's the difference I was referring to.

If she had an arm amputed it would still be much worse, what's it's you point??

What?

If she was violated then she was abused.
I get the feeling that you trying to play down his action.
There was penetration so she was abused and violated. This is what is relevant. Whether or not he used his penis is irrelevant.

I'm sorry, but stripping her naked and riding her doggystyle in front of the camera is far more extreme than slipping his fingers up her skirt for a few seconds.

She was passed out, he wasn't. This is a huge difference, had she been awake we wouldn't be talking about it.

*sigh*

I was not referring to this case in Africa. I was referring to a double-standard held in society when two adults are drunk, but not passed out. It was a rhetorical question unrelated to this case in Africa.