I'm not too sure what country and jurisdiction you live in, but in mine it is very likely that it would legally classify as ra**. The law doesn't allow you to rely on prior consent once a person becomes unconscious. Even if someone agrees to s**, once they're no longer conscious, further acts are illegal.
I think what you were trying to say is that, for better or for worse, real life is different to a courtroom. That means that in too many incidents, even ones with crystal clear, verbal, conscious withdrawal of consent, survivors are still faced with so many barriers that their injustice will likely never be heard by a judge. The reality is that what happened between Ian and Jo at the campsite would be extremely difficult to even build a case for because 1) they were completely alone and; 2) they were in the course of the act when Ian passed out—so how would Ian even know? (And that's the problematic aspect of it, bc he wouldn't know.)
People make arguments all the time that the definition should be narrower or more nuanced, but allowing offenders too much wriggle room in court, when it's already extremely unlikely to get them there in the first place, has not and will not be recommended by any stakeholders.
Originally I was under the impression that Jo would be the healthier romantic interest for Ian, but the campsite incident did change my mind. That's why I really want to see people talking about each character's development not by blindly supporting anyone, but by pointing out the major story themes. You guys literally proved just now how much else there could be to talk about.
Comment by bibliophage on BeautyIsPain
@BeautyIsPain
I love emotional intimacy, yearners and service tops - if your tastes are similar, you might like some of these: /lists/z8Nx03aD-recommendations! :)
2 Replies
@bibliophage I live in America. I can't speak for every state, but in my state, what took place between Jo and Ian would not classify as ra**. Before I wrote any of those replies, I asked a family member who is in law enforcement and a friend of mine who is a lawyer did this constitute ra**. Both said no. I also asked my mom and a few friends if they would consider this situation ra** and they also said no.
My intention any time I write something on the internet, especially regarding topics as serious as assault, is to spread factual knowledge. Even if my personal opinion does not align with those facts, I will still state what I know to be true.
I appreciate the way you offered your insight on the topic and understanding of my pov, despite disagreeing with some parts. A healthy conversation around this topic is great for people to understand that sometimes things aren't always as simple as we'd like them to be. And I agree with you -- survivors of assault are faced with way too many barriers in seeking justice. The law is often unfair to them.
However, the law also has a responsibility to protect against false accusations and nuances. Because Jo was already on the brink of org*** when Ian passed out, and only continued for mere seconds afterwards, the law would not recognize that as a violation of consent. He had no control over the fact that Ian passed out. And the law would argue that he stopped as soon as he could, therefore not violating the consent that his partner had previously given. Does that make what he did okay? No. At least, not in my opinion. But it wasn't a crime. That was the point I was trying to make.
Personally, I don't care about endgame. I don't think that Ian should be with Jo or TJ. He needs extensive therapy. I just want him to heal and be happy. But I'm not gonna falsely demonize Jo when he doesn't deserve it. That's not right either.
My intention any time I write something on the internet, especially regarding topics as serious as assault, is to spread factual knowledge. Even if my personal opinion does not align with those facts, I will still state what I know to be true.
I appreciate the way you offered your insight on the topic and understanding of my pov, despite disagreeing with some parts. A healthy conversation around this topic is great for people to understand that sometimes things aren't always as simple as we'd like them to be. And I agree with you -- survivors of assault are faced with way too many barriers in seeking justice. The law is often unfair to them.
However, the law also has a responsibility to protect against false accusations and nuances. Because Jo was already on the brink of org*** when Ian passed out, and only continued for mere seconds afterwards, the law would not recognize that as a violation of consent. He had no control over the fact that Ian passed out. And the law would argue that he stopped as soon as he could, therefore not violating the consent that his partner had previously given. Does that make what he did okay? No. At least, not in my opinion. But it wasn't a crime. That was the point I was trying to make.
Personally, I don't care about endgame. I don't think that Ian should be with Jo or TJ. He needs extensive therapy. I just want him to heal and be happy. But I'm not gonna falsely demonize Jo when he doesn't deserve it. That's not right either.
@bibliophage absolutely agree with you. the legal nuance around consent and unconsciousness is often weaponized to create doubt, but the core issue remains clear that once someone is no longer conscious, any continued act is a violation & you’re right, the sad reality is that far too many survivors never get justice precisely because of the lack of evidence or witnesses, not because what happened wasn’t assault & what’s even more heartbreaking is the possibility that ian may never realize he was raped by someone he trusted.