Find Your Valentine
Slog
News & ArtsMonday, December 7, 2009
Savage Love SL Letter of the Day: Brothers Should Do It (Frat Brothers, Not Actual Brothers)
Posted by Dan Savage on Mon, Dec 7, 2009 at 2:00 PM
This is about brotherly love. No. Not incest, but frat boy love. I'm gay, in a fraternity, all that is cool and everything. I was resigned to not sleeping with any of these guys, as appealing as that is. Now last night one of the guys was really wasted and kept making moves on me. When I was near him he'd put his arm around me in a way that was much more than friendly, he was being very touchy, putting his hand in mine practically. Later he decided to go to bed and offered his couch as a place for me to crash. I began to wonder how seriously this allegedly straight guy wanted to bone or not, especially because the night before he kept hugging me, kissed me on the cheek a few times, and said things like, "I love you, but not like that." So I am getting ready to lay on his couch and he says, "Oh, dude, like you need a blanket and pillow, better just pass out in my bed. I'll take this side, you take that side." We wound up making out a little, our hands made the rounds, but before things started to heat up I asked him if he was sure about what he was doing, if he even knows what he is doing, etc. He doesn't really respond with words, but is weirded out and stops, and rolls over and goes to sleep. Today he says he doesn't want to talk about it, wants to forget the whole thing because he can't really remember anyway. My question, aside from what to get this fool for Secret Santa, is this: Do I just let it go, let him figure things out for himself. I offered to talk about it, and he said he didn't want to. So have I fulfilled whatever obligations I might have had in this situation?Queer's Unfortunate Elopement Ends Ridiculously
My answer after the jump...
I'm torn, QUEER.
On the one hand, I'm thinking you did the right thing. The boy was drunk, his inhibitions were lowered by the booze, his ability to consent to sex—gay, straight, whatever—was in doubt, blah blah blah. And if you messed around and he freaked out and made a scene, QUEER, the rest of your frat brothers would perceive you as the villain in the piece on his piece. Because gay men are predatory and all of us just dying to bed straight/straight-identified boys, right? You have to live with these guys all year; you don't want them to believe—falsely—that you're after their asses. So probably better that you didn't continue with the encounter that he clearly initiated.
On the other hand...
Lots of guys don't make the decision to come out until they've had a few gay experiences and lots of these guys—particularly the deeply conflicted ones—have those first gay experiences something less than stone-cold sober. Yes, booze lowers your inhibitions... which at times is exactly the reason why someone chooses to get drunk. And often it's those early, pre-coming-out, shit-faced gay experiences that help these guys realize that 1. they really and truly are gay and 2. they really and truly can't live without the cock. By pausing for a little consciousness-raising session ("What are you doing? Do you know what you're doing?"), QUEER, you forced him to contemplate coming out—at least to you—which he may not have been ready to do at that moment even if he was ready to do you at that moment. And that may have delayed his inevitable coming out.
So... I understand why you wanted to stop and negotiate and share and lesbo it up: you wanted him to say, at least to you, that you two were doing/about to do what he wanted to do, not just what you, the only openly gay person in his bed, wanted to do. You wanted him to take responsibility for the sex he was having, drunk or not. (And it's best to stick to low-stakes, less-threatening sex play during an encounter like the one you describe, i.e. mutual masturbation, a little—very little—oral, even if the closeted person wants to go farther.) But I think it might've been better for all concerned—you, him, readers taking vicarious enjoyment from your story—if you had done him first and raised his consciousness later.
2
Sounds like this guy is flirting with the writer, trying to raise enough interest that the writer makes the first move. Since he's tried TWICE now, he's probably interested but scared shitless. The writer should invite him to his place for a drink. If the guy comes, he is interested.
4
Oh my God, you have to fix the broken permalink on this post! This is such a cliffhanger and we can't see what your advice is. Perhaps it is the same as mine: uncontrollable hyperventilation.
7
Pound it like a gameshow buzzer, buddy.
With his consent, of course. He's trying to make sure you:
1) Won't out him
2) Won't hurt him
3) Won't get all weirded out if he stalls or backs out a couple of times
Go at his pace and then hit that like you're trying to win a boat.
With his consent, of course. He's trying to make sure you:
1) Won't out him
2) Won't hurt him
3) Won't get all weirded out if he stalls or backs out a couple of times
Go at his pace and then hit that like you're trying to win a boat.
11
I totally agree with you Dan - you can't get all chatty with those types of boys. I nearly choked when I read that he wanted to have a chatty session with the guy and help him process what was going on. Girl - just suck that dick.
12
Ask him if he wants to watch some porn together...nothing odd about that question in a frat house.
13
Just hit that piece of ass but make sure he's the top: easier to claim later that HE raped YOU should it come out in the frat house. Always make the other person the victim.
14
@3 very nice.
See if this were two closet cases they would have gone through with it, but one is out and trying to be sensitive he doesn't get some. Poor guy.
See if this were two closet cases they would have gone through with it, but one is out and trying to be sensitive he doesn't get some. Poor guy.
15
Sounds like something out of my college journal (if I kept one) accept I DID have sex with fraternity brother, several times! He was the hot one! His girlfriends new and were cool. Years on, we still keep in touch and whenever his band comes to the area, I am sure to catch it. He blows a good trumpet.
16
@1 and @5:
Since when did fucking a drunk person become "rape"? Not only do you have a shitty attitude about sex, but you are making a mockery of people who have *actually* been raped.
P.S. "lesbo it up" - that is hilarious.
Since when did fucking a drunk person become "rape"? Not only do you have a shitty attitude about sex, but you are making a mockery of people who have *actually* been raped.
P.S. "lesbo it up" - that is hilarious.
17
@1 and 5 Where do you get rape? He invited this guy to his room, to his bed then started making out with him and touching him. That sounds like consent, no? Don't you have to say no or at least try to stop the proceedings to be raped? Or maybe not be the one to initiate the whole thing? It's this definition of rape that causes victims to not be taken seriously.
18
I don't think you answered his question Dan.
If he want to play with his frat-bro, he should tell him what he would be up for, and just leave it on the table. Maybe in the next days/weeks/months/years he will take him up on the offer. He should also frame it in a way that his frat-bro can experiment, but still keep his strait-frat-bro cred. if he only takes him up on his offer a few times.
If he want to play with his frat-bro, he should tell him what he would be up for, and just leave it on the table. Maybe in the next days/weeks/months/years he will take him up on the offer. He should also frame it in a way that his frat-bro can experiment, but still keep his strait-frat-bro cred. if he only takes him up on his offer a few times.
19
On a semi-related tangent, I'm curious: are many fraternities openly accepting gays these days? Or are most of them still hotbeds of homophobia and bigotry (and the ultimate conquest fantasy for horny college homos)?
20
@16, 17 -- the letter writer said he stopped and asked the guy if he was sure he wanted to continue, and the guy "is weirded out and stops". Dan says, "Bro, bad call! You shouldn't have asked! Next that that happens just fuck the guy and worry about his feelings later."
That's advocating rape. If this was a male/female situation I wonder if you'd be okay with it.
That's advocating rape. If this was a male/female situation I wonder if you'd be okay with it.
21
One of my former roommates was a gay frat boy at one of the big Florida colleges. (I could never tell them apart.) He was the most stereotypical frat boy I could imagine when I first met him just after graduation in '06. The way he described the situation, if you fit into the frat mold, no one cared if you were gay. If you were a queen or flamboyant in some way, I'm sure the guys wouldn't have been nearly as cool.
22
@20: That's taking too many liberties with the term-- Dan is pointing out that the guy was all for it and consenting until QUEER started getting cold feet.
23
Here's a bit of advice that worked on me back when I was still "figuring things out": If it happens again, say something like,"If you want, I can *just* jack you off, just to see if you like it." Or you could up it to a blow job or whatever. The important thing for me was that-- in the heat of the moment-- a clear boundary was established. It's pretty typical to think of gay sex in terms of anal sex, especially for someone with presumably zero experience. When you said, "Are you sure you'd like to do this?" he may have had no idea of what "this" meant.
24
@20 Huh? Making out and grabbing someone's dick is consent. The 'straight' brother objected not to the sex, but to the discussion of feelings. I want to say this again: The closeted frat boy had given %100 pure absolute unquestionable consent for out-boy to engage in sexual relations. It's not rape if someone invites you into their bed makes out with you, and grabs your dick. By your definition, all sex would be rape.
25
@22, we'll just have to agree to disagree, I guess. That whole second to last paragraph about how some guys need to be drunk in order to be willing to try fucking another man, especially if they're deeply conflicted, so get them when their inhibitions are lowered... I don't know, that sounds pretty damn rapey to me.
26
Pfft,
Closet Frat has his own shit to deal with, it's not the writers fault he chickened out at the last minute. QUEER was just being a decent person.
But, sometimes is a hell of a lot more fun to be a terrible person. And frankly, this guy seems like he had his runway all lit up for him to come in for a landing (come sleep in my bed?!) so I think the benefits would have outweighed the cost to your ethical senses.
Closet Frat has his own shit to deal with, it's not the writers fault he chickened out at the last minute. QUEER was just being a decent person.
But, sometimes is a hell of a lot more fun to be a terrible person. And frankly, this guy seems like he had his runway all lit up for him to come in for a landing (come sleep in my bed?!) so I think the benefits would have outweighed the cost to your ethical senses.
27
@20
So, what if this guy didn't stop to ask the closet case if he was sure, and the closet case didn't get weirded out and stop, and they proceeded to fuck each others brains out? You think that's rape?
Let me help clarify this for you. Failing to stop when someone says "no" is rape. Failing to spend hours holding each other and processing feelings before having consensual sex is not rape.
So, what if this guy didn't stop to ask the closet case if he was sure, and the closet case didn't get weirded out and stop, and they proceeded to fuck each others brains out? You think that's rape?
Let me help clarify this for you. Failing to stop when someone says "no" is rape. Failing to spend hours holding each other and processing feelings before having consensual sex is not rape.
28
@25: No, no—don't "go get them" when their inhibitions are lowered. But if one comes charging at you after he's gone and lowered his own inhibitions, let him come and get you.
29
@24, if it was clear 100% absolute unquestionable consent, then why did the letter writer feel like he had to ask for consent? Your logic is flawed. And no, by my definition all sex is not rape. Good god, by your definition a kiss and a grope is a green light to do whatever you want. That's a recipe for bad news, son.
30
@25: Then the straight guy raped QUEER.
He came onto QUEER, he presented himself sexually without inquiring of QUEER, and he got terribly bothered when QUEER tried to build a consent-based framework for their encounter and called the encounter off. It's too easy to claim the gay guy was the rapist, but if you consider the facts, this straight guy wanted an easy lay and was incredibly bothered by anything that would imply some measure of power was being ceded to QUEER.
He came onto QUEER, he presented himself sexually without inquiring of QUEER, and he got terribly bothered when QUEER tried to build a consent-based framework for their encounter and called the encounter off. It's too easy to claim the gay guy was the rapist, but if you consider the facts, this straight guy wanted an easy lay and was incredibly bothered by anything that would imply some measure of power was being ceded to QUEER.
31
@30, if you want to call kissing and groping rape, you can, but I haven't gone that far in my definition so I'm not going to agree with you.
32
@25
No, no, see it doesn't work like that. If out guy *doesn't* try and rape closet case, he is being a DIS-honest friend. Ask Dan - he'll tell you all about it.
No, no, see it doesn't work like that. If out guy *doesn't* try and rape closet case, he is being a DIS-honest friend. Ask Dan - he'll tell you all about it.
33
@19, at least at my college, fraternities were really acceptive of gay brothers. I was openly gay and elected to chapter president and to the IFC (university wide fraternity governing board). There were 18 fraternities and I can think of only a few that didn't have an out brother that i knew of.
@17, depending on the state, a person who is drunk can be considered to have a mental incapacity and unable to give consent even if he/she said yes to sex or initiated.
@17, depending on the state, a person who is drunk can be considered to have a mental incapacity and unable to give consent even if he/she said yes to sex or initiated.
34
These comments are a total boner shrinker. I liked it better when we were telling him to just fuck the hot frat guy already.
36
@29: Because he probably felt like he was being taken advantage of? Because not every gay guy is going to be comfortable with someone's intent or really necessary want to bang someone? Because the risk of this guy getting his bone AND deflecting blame and shame for his peccadilloes was pretty high? Because some dimwits will automatically assume it's the gay guy that's the rapist and not vice versa?
Haha, oh god, wow. I love this.
Haha, oh god, wow. I love this.
37
In 10 years, the brother will be married with a couple of kids, and secretly chasing dick on the Internet. Just like the millions of his brethren.
39
@19 - That label is a little unfair but to answer your question we had a three gay dudes in my frat at ASU.
40
@29 "if it was clear 100% absolute unquestionable consent, then why did the letter writer feel like he had to ask for consent"
He didn't ask for consent - he already had it. He just asked the guy to reconsider what they had already begun to do, presumably because they are friends, they live in the same house, and he was concerned the guy might get all weird about it later.
He didn't ask for consent - he already had it. He just asked the guy to reconsider what they had already begun to do, presumably because they are friends, they live in the same house, and he was concerned the guy might get all weird about it later.
41
@31: Ah, here's the rub: any normal dimwit would easily accept the straight guy's testimony that "I only fooled around, I was drunk" without realizing that there's clearly been an attempt at something more. Straight guy's reaction pretty much blows his cover, and it's hard to believe in any way shape or form that he intended just to make out and let his hands go down the Appian Way without any kind of sexual contact. Not when he went far out of his way to cut off any assumption on QUEER's part that he had meant anything more than what transpired.
There was a perfectly good couch, but straight guy said no. QUEER intended on just crashing, but straight guy said "nuh uh, c'mere". QUEER wanted to make sure straight guy was okay with it, negotiating himself into a manner of control he previously hadn't had, but straight guy clammed up and got a cold chill when he realized he'd been basically doing something without explicit consent.
And for the record, those who grope inappropriately and aggressively without consent are headed for a little sign on their front lawn and their own entry in a not-so-prestigious database. Or at least expulsion from school.
There was a perfectly good couch, but straight guy said no. QUEER intended on just crashing, but straight guy said "nuh uh, c'mere". QUEER wanted to make sure straight guy was okay with it, negotiating himself into a manner of control he previously hadn't had, but straight guy clammed up and got a cold chill when he realized he'd been basically doing something without explicit consent.
And for the record, those who grope inappropriately and aggressively without consent are headed for a little sign on their front lawn and their own entry in a not-so-prestigious database. Or at least expulsion from school.
42
Nope, Dan, you told him he did the okay yet "lesbo" thing by checking to see if the straight guy was still okay, and that it would have been better for everyone if he'd just fucked the guy and worried about his "consciousness" later.
Would you have given the same advice to a hetero guy asking about a drunk girl in his bed kissing him?
Would you have given the same advice to a hetero guy asking about a drunk girl in his bed kissing him?
43
@36, all those reasons that you're giving? Those sound like reasons why the letter writer wasn't sure about whether or not he had consent. Your spin on this is really creepy.
44
Dan, the closet case might wake up and feel traumatized and violated, just like a horny young virginity pledger might feel after a first experience. QUEER knows that this guy won't straight up consent, you are at the very least pushing QUEER to take some serious risks, and you may be letting closet case do some things he is going to beat himself up for. Judging by all the prominent closet cases in the news a gay experience may not help this kid come out - I'd in fact think dangling sex in front of his face but not giving it to him would be much more motivation.
bad plan, dan.
bad plan, dan.
46
I agree w/@25...to simply have gone ahead w/this drunk guy could have been borderline rape.
I would have been very wary in this situation w/someone who's not out, drunk, and it's a frat house setting. Way too easy for this guy to say later "Hey, I was drunk, I didn't know what I was doing," and poor QUEER is the one that has to take the fall, and would probably face much harassment from the other frat geeks.
Note also the legal point @33 makes. Just too dangerous a situation to walk into.
I would have been very wary in this situation w/someone who's not out, drunk, and it's a frat house setting. Way too easy for this guy to say later "Hey, I was drunk, I didn't know what I was doing," and poor QUEER is the one that has to take the fall, and would probably face much harassment from the other frat geeks.
Note also the legal point @33 makes. Just too dangerous a situation to walk into.
47
@43
"Creepy"? Fine, that's your opinion.
"Rape" - not even close.
"Rapey" - not a valid English word, and makes about as much sense as "pregnantish".
"Creepy"? Fine, that's your opinion.
"Rape" - not even close.
"Rapey" - not a valid English word, and makes about as much sense as "pregnantish".
48
@43: I think it's terribly creepy that in this day and age we assume that it's totally a-okay to grope up on somebody who is sexually attracted to your gender. Which is part of the reason QUEER asked the question of the straight guy, since, again, dimwits will say "oh, well, he's straight, how could he consent or even want to do something so gross?"
This is why the "gay panic" defense is still so potent.
But yeah, Dan wants to put QUEER into a dangerous position and there's no way in hell the straight guy is culpable in any way shape or form.
This is why the "gay panic" defense is still so potent.
But yeah, Dan wants to put QUEER into a dangerous position and there's no way in hell the straight guy is culpable in any way shape or form.
49
@48, I agree with you there.
@47, if the letter writer had gone ahead and fucked the guy like Dan says he should have done, yes, that would be rape, because a kiss is not consent. Neither is a grope. That's what we teach hetero boys about the way to treat girls, and I don't agree with having a double standard for gay boys.
@47, if the letter writer had gone ahead and fucked the guy like Dan says he should have done, yes, that would be rape, because a kiss is not consent. Neither is a grope. That's what we teach hetero boys about the way to treat girls, and I don't agree with having a double standard for gay boys.
51
I see, so everyone is in a state of consent until they say otherwise? So if a man kisses a woman who clearly isn't interested in him that's kosher? And if she doesn't kiss back, that still isn't good enough? What if she doesn't scream no, she just says it quietly? What if she doesn't struggle "enough"?
No means no. Silence means no.
Jesus Christ, no wonder so many rapes are committed every year.
Failing to stop when someone says "no" is rape.
I see, so everyone is in a state of consent until they say otherwise? So if a man kisses a woman who clearly isn't interested in him that's kosher? And if she doesn't kiss back, that still isn't good enough? What if she doesn't scream no, she just says it quietly? What if she doesn't struggle "enough"?
No means no. Silence means no.
Jesus Christ, no wonder so many rapes are committed every year.
53
Yeah... I wouldn't think it's rape, a lot of the commenters wouldn't think it was rape, but if the frat bro in question thought it was rape the next day because he was too drunk to consent, QUEER could be in for a world of hurt. It's a calculated risk- on the one hand, possibly introduce frat bro to the wonderful world of gay humping that he's always dreamed of- on the other, end up with QUEER getting the shit beaten out of him by the other frat bros, or maybe some jail time. Procede with caution, QUEER.
54
@49 Dan didn't say not to ask for consent - he said that asking the frat boy to evaluate his feelings, esp. about potentially being gay, freaked out the frat boy who otherwise wanted to fool around. Yes, as someone else said, an intoxicated person can't legally consent in many places - but there's a big difference between not asking a possibly uninterested party for consent and not pausing to question a drunken party's sexual advances. The key being who is doing the initiating.
@51 What the heck? Everyone WHO INTIATES is consenting until they say stop. (Unless you want to get into a drunk initiator being able to consent.) This situation was nowhere near any of your examples.
@51 What the heck? Everyone WHO INTIATES is consenting until they say stop. (Unless you want to get into a drunk initiator being able to consent.) This situation was nowhere near any of your examples.
56
If it was a drunk straight guy who had flirted with a girl, and then invited a girl to bed, and initiated groping and making out, and she was into it and went along with it because she wanted sex too... who would say he was raped by her? The assumption is of course, that men want sex, and women don't. Which is why when you go to the example of the drunk woman clearly initiating and desiring sex from a straight man, it's easier for people to say "Oh, that was rape!" Because clearly she was just drunk, and couldn't have wanted sex normally. But the truth is, that people, straight, gay, men, women, sometimes drink in the first place because they WANT sex, but are normally too nervous and inhibited to just go for it.
The principled sex-negative feminist would of course say that the man was raped in that example. But I don't think many men in that situation would feel that they had been raped. If they had gone to bed with someone below their normal standards, they might feel that they had done something stupid, but they're not going to deflect blame onto the woman. Getting drunk and looking for action was something THEY did. I'm a gay man, and I've gotten drunk, and gotten action, and I'm willing to take responsibility for that. (Note: we're talking drunk and tipsy, not drunk and vomity and passing-out-y). And I don't want to be called a victim of rape when I've gone and done that, and I certainly don't want to call the people who did it with me rapists.
But if a straight guy was in bed with a drunk girl who had been flirting with him and had even *invited* him to bed and then began groping him, I wouldn't say that he was at fault if he continued the encounter. It's the same standard I apply to myself.
The principled sex-negative feminist would of course say that the man was raped in that example. But I don't think many men in that situation would feel that they had been raped. If they had gone to bed with someone below their normal standards, they might feel that they had done something stupid, but they're not going to deflect blame onto the woman. Getting drunk and looking for action was something THEY did. I'm a gay man, and I've gotten drunk, and gotten action, and I'm willing to take responsibility for that. (Note: we're talking drunk and tipsy, not drunk and vomity and passing-out-y). And I don't want to be called a victim of rape when I've gone and done that, and I certainly don't want to call the people who did it with me rapists.
But if a straight guy was in bed with a drunk girl who had been flirting with him and had even *invited* him to bed and then began groping him, I wouldn't say that he was at fault if he continued the encounter. It's the same standard I apply to myself.
57
All this talk about rape is redonkulous. As the facts have been presented, it appears QUEER did have his frat bro's consent - being that they were kissing, fondling, and possibly already having sex in the form of mutual masturbation. Even if you argue they WEREN'T already having sex, I think it's safe to assume that when someone invites you into their bed and starts kissing you and touching your dick, that they intend to have sex with you.
The consent was withdrawn after QUEER questioned his frat bro's intentions. Some of you seem to be confused about Dan's advice on this point - he's not advocating that QUEER should have gone ahead and had sex with this guy AFTER his consent had been withdrawn...he's saying that QUEER should have just let whatever was going to happen happen without second guessing his frat bro's intentions.
And I get the whole "you can't give consent when you're drunk" argument - but I know a lot of drunk, horny people who would disagree. In fact I daresay no one would ever have sex in college if that rule was uniformly followed.
The consent was withdrawn after QUEER questioned his frat bro's intentions. Some of you seem to be confused about Dan's advice on this point - he's not advocating that QUEER should have gone ahead and had sex with this guy AFTER his consent had been withdrawn...he's saying that QUEER should have just let whatever was going to happen happen without second guessing his frat bro's intentions.
And I get the whole "you can't give consent when you're drunk" argument - but I know a lot of drunk, horny people who would disagree. In fact I daresay no one would ever have sex in college if that rule was uniformly followed.
59
It may have been just as much about the way he worded the question.
Had QUEER asked "Do you wanna jerk off?" or some question along those lines, something about what they should do, rather than how frat boy feels about those actions (i.e. are you sure you're gay? type question). Perhaps that's the safest course to take here.
And no, @51, the point is that if you give indications of wanting to have sex, and don't give any indications (verbal or otherwise) of not wanting to... that's consent. Even if you don't say "Let's have sex!" It's not necessarily saying "no" exactly. But if you kiss me first, and I kiss back. And you grope me, and I grope back... Then I'd say you have consented. Unless you give some form of "no", verbal or otherwise. If you swat my hand away when I try to grope back, that's a "no". If you say "no", that's a "no". If you turn away from me and curl up, that's a "no". But if instead, your response to my groping is to pull down my pants, I'm going to say that's not a "no", and in fact, is a "yes".
Not everything has to be explicit, and that applies to both giving and withholding consent. You don't have to explicitly say "no" for it to be rape (you can say it with body language and so forth as well), but I don't think it's necessary to explicitly say "Yes, I want to have sex" for it to be consensual either.
Had QUEER asked "Do you wanna jerk off?" or some question along those lines, something about what they should do, rather than how frat boy feels about those actions (i.e. are you sure you're gay? type question). Perhaps that's the safest course to take here.
And no, @51, the point is that if you give indications of wanting to have sex, and don't give any indications (verbal or otherwise) of not wanting to... that's consent. Even if you don't say "Let's have sex!" It's not necessarily saying "no" exactly. But if you kiss me first, and I kiss back. And you grope me, and I grope back... Then I'd say you have consented. Unless you give some form of "no", verbal or otherwise. If you swat my hand away when I try to grope back, that's a "no". If you say "no", that's a "no". If you turn away from me and curl up, that's a "no". But if instead, your response to my groping is to pull down my pants, I'm going to say that's not a "no", and in fact, is a "yes".
Not everything has to be explicit, and that applies to both giving and withholding consent. You don't have to explicitly say "no" for it to be rape (you can say it with body language and so forth as well), but I don't think it's necessary to explicitly say "Yes, I want to have sex" for it to be consensual either.
60
@56, i agree with a lot of what you said, though drinking and having sex can be risky from a law stand point. For example, Ohio law says:
(A)(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when ...
"(c) The other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age."
Its well documented that alcohol is a mental impairment but its not clear what level becomes a "substantial" impairment. I also think the law unfairly holds the male responsible if both parties are drinking. At the same time i think the law is needed to protect women from being taken advantage of.
The bottom line is, at least in Ohio, it would come down to how the prosecutor and the jury applied the law.
(A)(1) No person shall engage in sexual conduct with another when ...
"(c) The other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age, and the offender knows or has reasonable cause to believe that the other person’s ability to resist or consent is substantially impaired because of a mental or physical condition or because of advanced age."
Its well documented that alcohol is a mental impairment but its not clear what level becomes a "substantial" impairment. I also think the law unfairly holds the male responsible if both parties are drinking. At the same time i think the law is needed to protect women from being taken advantage of.
The bottom line is, at least in Ohio, it would come down to how the prosecutor and the jury applied the law.
61
haunted leg is one of the only people here who has any clue what 'consent' or 'rape' actually are. that is pretty fucking frightening.
here's an idea: 'yes means yes'. which is just what QUEER was trying to establish - consent. when he couldn't get it, the action halted. this is the ideal world in action, let's not mess with that, okay? jesus tapdancing christ, dan, QUEER didn't *want* to be a rapist. lots of people don't! that is actually a GOOD thing. let's encourage that where we can.
even IF the 'straight' frat boy wanted someone to blame for his first homosexual encounter besides himself and his own goddamn desire for it, there isn't a single fucking faggot in the world who should do that for him. 'i needed a rapist because no one else would pry me out of the closet' is not a legitimate excuse for encouraging rape. this has to be one of your biggest logic fails ever, dan. what the fuck.
here's an idea: 'yes means yes'. which is just what QUEER was trying to establish - consent. when he couldn't get it, the action halted. this is the ideal world in action, let's not mess with that, okay? jesus tapdancing christ, dan, QUEER didn't *want* to be a rapist. lots of people don't! that is actually a GOOD thing. let's encourage that where we can.
even IF the 'straight' frat boy wanted someone to blame for his first homosexual encounter besides himself and his own goddamn desire for it, there isn't a single fucking faggot in the world who should do that for him. 'i needed a rapist because no one else would pry me out of the closet' is not a legitimate excuse for encouraging rape. this has to be one of your biggest logic fails ever, dan. what the fuck.
62
OMG. Seriously people. As someone who actually has been raped- and who has had years of therapy and support groups and has heard lots of stories from other survivors- I can tell you that Dan was not advocating rape in anyway.
The frat boy initiated everything. QUEER didn't have to check in at all. But he did because he was being considerate and smart. If he hadn't checked in? Still not rape- not unless the frat boy resisted.
Also, big difference between getting drunk and initiating sex, and getting drunk and having someone initiate sex with you.
The frat boy initiated everything. QUEER didn't have to check in at all. But he did because he was being considerate and smart. If he hadn't checked in? Still not rape- not unless the frat boy resisted.
Also, big difference between getting drunk and initiating sex, and getting drunk and having someone initiate sex with you.
64
The idea that if you are drunk you cannot have consensual sex is ridiculous, whether it is the law due to some morons or not. What that is saying is that if YOU get drunk then SOMEONE ELSE is responsible for your decisions. Can you imagine that argument in any other circumstance?
"I was drunk so she shoulda known better than to mouth off to me." "I was drunk so that other driver should have been more careful."
For fucks sake people, when you get drunk you do stupid shit. Deal or stop drinking. And "next day remorse" is not rape.
"I was drunk so she shoulda known better than to mouth off to me." "I was drunk so that other driver should have been more careful."
For fucks sake people, when you get drunk you do stupid shit. Deal or stop drinking. And "next day remorse" is not rape.
65
@61 QUEER, from what his letter says, wasn't looking for legal consent (and as many posters have said, legal consent wasn't necessarily possible as the frat boy was drunk. But if consent was possible, the guy had given it by continuously initiating. If it weren't for the alcohol and previously stated sexual orientation, no one would have a doubt about consent. What QUEER was looking for - and what stopped the frat guy - was for him to emotionally own up to the ramifications of what he was doing, i.e. potentially being gay.
66
@51
I think we all agree that rape is bad.
I also think throwing a guy in jail, registering him as a sex offender, and thereby ruining his life because he failed to read someone's mind is just as bad.
I think we all agree that rape is bad.
I also think throwing a guy in jail, registering him as a sex offender, and thereby ruining his life because he failed to read someone's mind is just as bad.
67
The word you're looking for is "brojob". As my husband commented when I told him what the term meant, he replied, "Shit, I'm old enough to remember when that was called 'Damn, I was SO drunk last night I don't remember anything that happened'".
That said, QUEER, you're in the clear an this encounter (you won't be if you keep trying to talk it out with him, but you know that already). Next time, when he gets to the bed offer, tell him, "Dude, that's not gonna end well. Give me a damn pillow. I'll take the couch."
Dan's torn because of a generational thing, which I share with him. I disagree with him though. It used to be hard as hell for guys like your frat brother to find "safe" encounters back when Dan and I were growing up and coming out. Part of what being out and secure in being out meant was taking on certain responsibilities when someone worked up enough gumption to set up something like this to test the waters themselves. That's simply not the case any longer. He wants to fuck around with you, he can make it happen without the alcohol. Or he could ask you to set him up with someone you know (probably a better idea regardless, but I'm funny about sleeping with people I work with/live with in group settings). Or he could look on Craig's List for either a casual encounter or a pro. Point is, aside from any other qualities he finds attractive, you're convenient for his exploration of his boy/boy desires. All well and good, but do it on your terms. If you're okay with it, go for it, but as was said above, set your boundaries and stick to them, and don't let him take advantage--this is his fantasy trip, not yours.
As for what to get him, I'd go with a fleshlight if you're feeling excessively generous.
That said, QUEER, you're in the clear an this encounter (you won't be if you keep trying to talk it out with him, but you know that already). Next time, when he gets to the bed offer, tell him, "Dude, that's not gonna end well. Give me a damn pillow. I'll take the couch."
Dan's torn because of a generational thing, which I share with him. I disagree with him though. It used to be hard as hell for guys like your frat brother to find "safe" encounters back when Dan and I were growing up and coming out. Part of what being out and secure in being out meant was taking on certain responsibilities when someone worked up enough gumption to set up something like this to test the waters themselves. That's simply not the case any longer. He wants to fuck around with you, he can make it happen without the alcohol. Or he could ask you to set him up with someone you know (probably a better idea regardless, but I'm funny about sleeping with people I work with/live with in group settings). Or he could look on Craig's List for either a casual encounter or a pro. Point is, aside from any other qualities he finds attractive, you're convenient for his exploration of his boy/boy desires. All well and good, but do it on your terms. If you're okay with it, go for it, but as was said above, set your boundaries and stick to them, and don't let him take advantage--this is his fantasy trip, not yours.
As for what to get him, I'd go with a fleshlight if you're feeling excessively generous.
69
I am infuriated by the ridiculous trivialization of "rape" on this horrible, horrible thread of comments. Are you morons seriously suggesting that if they had had sex, it would have been FORCED on that straight guy??
71
According to Washington State Law (presuming Queer is in Washington State) having sex with someone when they're incapacitated/mentally impaired is rape in the second degree.
@ 51, You are right, only "yes" is "yes". If the victim did not expressly consent to sexual intercourse, presuming silence is "yes", that would be rape in the 3rd degree.
That being said Dan was not advocating rape. He was advocating leaving the discussion about feelings after the boinking.
@ 39, ASU as in Arizona State University? They actually have a gay/straight/whatever fraternity now: Sigma Phi Beta
@ 51, You are right, only "yes" is "yes". If the victim did not expressly consent to sexual intercourse, presuming silence is "yes", that would be rape in the 3rd degree.
That being said Dan was not advocating rape. He was advocating leaving the discussion about feelings after the boinking.
@ 39, ASU as in Arizona State University? They actually have a gay/straight/whatever fraternity now: Sigma Phi Beta
72
I agree with the not-rape crowd.
Is the issue at hand actually one of whether QUEER was somehow obliged to ask?
Because if he wasn't obliged to ask, then how could it be rape if he hadn't asked (assuming that the boy continued to give no signs that he didn't want to proceed)?
Wouldn't that just be a normal sexy evening (potential 'gay realization' aside)?
I can only see it as rape if we assume QUEER was obliged to double check the guy wanted to proceed, even though all signs indicated so. He did ask, and the response did make him obliged to stop... but, that doesn't automatically mean he was obliged to ask in the first place.
And yeah, if this constituted rape then I'd have been raped more often than not. What, is every person supposed to specifically, verbally ask if the person they're about to screw is "sure they want to do this?". That is really going to mess up the moment when I'm with my husband ;P
Is the issue at hand actually one of whether QUEER was somehow obliged to ask?
Because if he wasn't obliged to ask, then how could it be rape if he hadn't asked (assuming that the boy continued to give no signs that he didn't want to proceed)?
Wouldn't that just be a normal sexy evening (potential 'gay realization' aside)?
I can only see it as rape if we assume QUEER was obliged to double check the guy wanted to proceed, even though all signs indicated so. He did ask, and the response did make him obliged to stop... but, that doesn't automatically mean he was obliged to ask in the first place.
And yeah, if this constituted rape then I'd have been raped more often than not. What, is every person supposed to specifically, verbally ask if the person they're about to screw is "sure they want to do this?". That is really going to mess up the moment when I'm with my husband ;P
73
It's a shades-of-gray situation, and Dan gave (good) shades-of-gray advice, and y'all need to chill out with this whole "rape" thing. There is, in fact, a difference between acting sketchy and being a rapist, and at worst, this guy could have possibly been guilty of the former if he had gone along with the sexin' under the circumstances he described.
I think it's *always* sketchy to fuck somebody who is drunk when you're not sure that they would choose to fuck you sober. But as long as they intentionally got drunk (ie. weren't being slipped anything without knowing what it was), don't say no, and are actively participating, it's not rape.
I think it's *always* sketchy to fuck somebody who is drunk when you're not sure that they would choose to fuck you sober. But as long as they intentionally got drunk (ie. weren't being slipped anything without knowing what it was), don't say no, and are actively participating, it's not rape.
74
@68
I find it chilling that you would convict this gay guy of rape, basically ruining his life, had he simply gone with the flow and fucked the closet case who had invited him into his bed and initiated sexual activity with him.
Not sure where you are coming from on this, but it isn't a good place.
I find it chilling that you would convict this gay guy of rape, basically ruining his life, had he simply gone with the flow and fucked the closet case who had invited him into his bed and initiated sexual activity with him.
Not sure where you are coming from on this, but it isn't a good place.
76
@74, you're reaching really, really hard to put words in my mouth. I'm saying it's really good that QUEER asked for consent because just plowing on through like Dan advocates leaves the poor guy open to a whole lot of horrible things, specifically because he can't read anyone's mind. He can't read his drunk straight friend's mind so he should definitely not be fucking him without first making sure his friend wants to be fucked.
Goddamn, dude, you really need to calm down.
Goddamn, dude, you really need to calm down.
77
@74, the key thing you keep forgetting is that when QUEER asked for consent, his friend DIDN'T GIVE IT. So QUEER did the right thing and stopped. Everything up to that point was okay because the friend was responding in kind, and yeah, if QUEER had just plowed ahead everything MIGHT have worked out fine. Or the drunk straight guy could have freaked out, yelled for help, beat the shit out of QUEER, et cetera. We don't know, but honestly, it's not QUEER's job to give his friend the hot, nasty, "omg I was sooooo drunk I don't know what I did" encounter he might have wanted. That's just a bad situation to be in, on either side.
78
I feel like some of the people who are throwing "rape" around have been out of college too long. Since when does "drunk" automatically mean "black-out-semi-concious-unable-to-make-choices?"
Maybe these guys were just a little fucked up. I know I would've never had my standard college gay experiences without any booze involved.
Maybe these guys were just a little fucked up. I know I would've never had my standard college gay experiences without any booze involved.
80
Okay, so as a straight woman, if I invite a guy into my bed, start making out with him, grab his dick, and he DOESN'T stop me and ask me if I really want to have sex before we have sex, then I just got raped?
Jesus Christ people, way to overreact. A tipsy woman or man initiating sex shouldn't have to sign a consent form.
Jesus Christ people, way to overreact. A tipsy woman or man initiating sex shouldn't have to sign a consent form.
81
@80, way to conflate the argument. Seriously. If you're drunk and you invite a dude into your bed and grope him and et cetera et cetera, he can fuck you if he wants, but it's in his best interest to MAKE SURE YOU WANT TO BE FUCKED BY ASKING YOU SOMETHING LIKE "IS THIS OKAY" OR "YOU'RE SURE YOU'RE COOL WITH THIS".
Honestly, what about that is hard to understand. And in a situation where you're a gay dude in a hyper-masculine, typically hyper-straight environment like a frat, maybe you should be extra careful about making sure your ostensibly straight, inebriated friends really do want you to fuck them. What is difficult to understand there?
Honestly, what about that is hard to understand. And in a situation where you're a gay dude in a hyper-masculine, typically hyper-straight environment like a frat, maybe you should be extra careful about making sure your ostensibly straight, inebriated friends really do want you to fuck them. What is difficult to understand there?
82
@76
Well, here's what you said in @49: "if the letter writer had gone ahead and fucked the guy like Dan says he should have done, yes, that would be rape."
Perhaps you were merely pointing out a legal fact rather than advocating for an overly broad definition of rape, in which case, my apologies for misunderstanding you.
But if what you are saying is true, and they both had sex without explicitly asking for formal consent, then who raped who? Should they both be convicted of rape? What if a girl and boy fuck each other without either asking that rather awkward and unromantic question, as have millions of boys and girls throughout history? Who's guilty, the boy or the girl? Both?
I think the humane answer is neither.
Well, here's what you said in @49: "if the letter writer had gone ahead and fucked the guy like Dan says he should have done, yes, that would be rape."
Perhaps you were merely pointing out a legal fact rather than advocating for an overly broad definition of rape, in which case, my apologies for misunderstanding you.
But if what you are saying is true, and they both had sex without explicitly asking for formal consent, then who raped who? Should they both be convicted of rape? What if a girl and boy fuck each other without either asking that rather awkward and unromantic question, as have millions of boys and girls throughout history? Who's guilty, the boy or the girl? Both?
I think the humane answer is neither.
83
@82, yes, I should have clarified that I meant legal rape, not that I personally would call that rape.
I'm also in no way saying that formal consent is always necessary otherwise the sex is rape, as others have accused me of saying. Jesus Christ, people. I just think it's a hell of a lot smarter to have clear consent when it's a gray area, like if the person is at all inebriated. I've made some truly moronic decisions with just a couple of drinks in me -- I wouldn't call what happened to me "rape" because I didn't give clear dissent, but I also wish it hadn't happened. Checking in for consent might be the "lesbo" way to go at it, as Dan so beautifully put it, but I think it's an overall better way to go.
I'm also in no way saying that formal consent is always necessary otherwise the sex is rape, as others have accused me of saying. Jesus Christ, people. I just think it's a hell of a lot smarter to have clear consent when it's a gray area, like if the person is at all inebriated. I've made some truly moronic decisions with just a couple of drinks in me -- I wouldn't call what happened to me "rape" because I didn't give clear dissent, but I also wish it hadn't happened. Checking in for consent might be the "lesbo" way to go at it, as Dan so beautifully put it, but I think it's an overall better way to go.
84
#59 is correct. #61 is incorrect. Yes, enthusiastic consent is a good standard for lawful sex. The fact that someone didn't say no (because they were to frightened/stunned, intimidated, semi-conscious, etc.) shouldn't be an excuse to have unwilling sex with them. But that doesn't mean that all sex is illegal until both participants take the trouble to say "yes, I want to have sex with you." That happens *extremely* rarely in my experience. Here in the real world, that's not the way people tend to signal their enthusiastic desire to have sex with someone. They tend to do it by initiating physical contact, then escalating it. In fact, inviting someone into your bed, making out with them, and fondling their dick is probably one of the most common ways people indicate "enthusiastic consent."
"I feel like some of the people who are throwing 'rape' around have been out of college too long. Since when does 'drunk' automatically mean 'black-out-semi-conscious-unable-to-make-choices?'" Bingo. You can go out to any bar in this great nation and see very talkative, energetic, goal-oriented drunk people. They are not all lying around in gutters. Sometimes they even initiate sex. Of course it's horrible when a rapist attacks someone who's passed after drinking too much. That doesn't mean all drunk people who have sex are rape victims.
"I feel like some of the people who are throwing 'rape' around have been out of college too long. Since when does 'drunk' automatically mean 'black-out-semi-conscious-unable-to-make-choices?'" Bingo. You can go out to any bar in this great nation and see very talkative, energetic, goal-oriented drunk people. They are not all lying around in gutters. Sometimes they even initiate sex. Of course it's horrible when a rapist attacks someone who's passed after drinking too much. That doesn't mean all drunk people who have sex are rape victims.
85
@ Haunted Leg: According to the description, the drunk dude tried to seduce the other dude, who played it safe--and so, no orgasms occurred. Dan's position is that sometimes, when someone gets themselves drunk and invites you into their bed and rubs you up and stuff (or rubs up your stuff) you should, maybe, take a risk to make the world a happier, hand-jobbier place.
You on the other hand make a reasonable argument that QUEER was prudent. Bravo--Dan and Slog have given QUEER a panoply of useful perspectives.
What's annoying is your "rape" accusation, which is what got the sloggers mad at you. You wrote: "if the letter writer had gone ahead and fucked the guy like Dan says he should have done, yes, that would be rape...". That's waaay over the top and not helpful to discussion so don't get all hoity-toity when people snap at you.
You on the other hand make a reasonable argument that QUEER was prudent. Bravo--Dan and Slog have given QUEER a panoply of useful perspectives.
What's annoying is your "rape" accusation, which is what got the sloggers mad at you. You wrote: "if the letter writer had gone ahead and fucked the guy like Dan says he should have done, yes, that would be rape...". That's waaay over the top and not helpful to discussion so don't get all hoity-toity when people snap at you.
86
Actually I just read Gudrun's post and I was wrong. The "rape" accusations DID make the discussion better.
But they're still dumb.
But they're still dumb.
87
@86, please explain to me how calling me hoity-toity and dumb helps any kind of discussion. By your own rationale I helped improve discussion here, even if you don't agree that doing what Dan advocates here would leave QUEER open to some pretty serious rape accusations. That's what I've been stating, although at first I may have made the mistake of not making that crystal clear for you.
88
@85 way to add something constructive. Especially as haunted leg cleared up the rape point two posts earlier, @83, by saying they meant that the frat boy would have a legal case for rape as he was drunk and couldn't legally give consent - which is correct and very helpful for the discussion. Most of the disagreement has just been a case of misinterpretation.
89
For the record, sexual assault (we do not have "rape laws" anymore) does not only happen when a person denies consent. It can also happen when there is a lack of consent, or an "incapacity to consent". The courts have been taking a lot of steps in order to prevent sexual behaviour on the part of men, which is driven by the biased views and stereotypes that women (or in this case, other men) are consenting when passive or incapable of communicating, and do not have a "full right of control over what is done to and with their bodies." So yeah, I think QUEER did the right thing by taking reasonable steps to ensure the frat boy was really consenting, because it was not only ethical, but it is what anyone should do when consent is ambiguous. So I agree 100% with haunted leg, behaviour suggesting yes, does not actually mean yes.
In response to an accusation of sexual assault, an accused person can bring up the convoluted, yet surprisingly successful defence of "honest, but mistaken belief of consent". However, you should all know, this defence can only be presented to a jury if the accused had shown their belief was made without being reckless or WILLFULLY BLIND. Just letting someone "come and get you" when they are shit-faced drunk, knowing they would never behave this way sober (as Dan suggested you should) ... well, if I was prosecutor, I would say that is being willfully blind. An accused person has to show they took steps to ascertain there was consent, before someone can make the claim of mistaken belief. Anyway, I do not know exactly what the law is in the States, but this is what I know about Canadian law ... and, I have rambled for way too long, back to QUEER's problem.
I honestly do not believe this would ever have amounted to a law suit. QUEER is just wondering if frat boy needs help coming out as either bi or homosexual, and he wants to know what he should do to ease that process ... if he should do anything at all.
More...
In response to an accusation of sexual assault, an accused person can bring up the convoluted, yet surprisingly successful defence of "honest, but mistaken belief of consent". However, you should all know, this defence can only be presented to a jury if the accused had shown their belief was made without being reckless or WILLFULLY BLIND. Just letting someone "come and get you" when they are shit-faced drunk, knowing they would never behave this way sober (as Dan suggested you should) ... well, if I was prosecutor, I would say that is being willfully blind. An accused person has to show they took steps to ascertain there was consent, before someone can make the claim of mistaken belief. Anyway, I do not know exactly what the law is in the States, but this is what I know about Canadian law ... and, I have rambled for way too long, back to QUEER's problem.
I honestly do not believe this would ever have amounted to a law suit. QUEER is just wondering if frat boy needs help coming out as either bi or homosexual, and he wants to know what he should do to ease that process ... if he should do anything at all.
90
Jesus, people. Everybody here, including Dan, has missed the most important part of the question: What should QUEER get this fool for Secret Santa?
91
For fuck's sake. Yes, it would have been rape if the writer had continued sexual contact after the guy refused his offer of verbal consent (although that is quite obviously not what he was actually doing--he was being a friend and a brother by making sure the guy was emotionally okay, not going through legal motions). Arguing that is so fucking retarded I'm surprised you people manage to log in.
That said, if a hot guy with two beers in him grabs my dick and starts making out with me, I'm not wasting my time saying things like "THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING YOU'RE SO WASTED YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING ON THE SAFE WORD IS BANANA." It is incredibly obvious that both the question and the response in this situation were about the emotional and social connotations of sexual contact, not about indication of desire to perform in the moment.
That said, if a hot guy with two beers in him grabs my dick and starts making out with me, I'm not wasting my time saying things like "THINK ABOUT WHAT YOU ARE DOING YOU'RE SO WASTED YOU HAVE NO IDEA WHAT'S GOING ON THE SAFE WORD IS BANANA." It is incredibly obvious that both the question and the response in this situation were about the emotional and social connotations of sexual contact, not about indication of desire to perform in the moment.
93
@90, actually, usagi @67 caught that and suggested a Fleshlight. I would add a membership to Corbin Fisher ACM or, dur, Fratmen.
94
Dan writes "On the other hand...But I think it might've been better for all concerned...if you had done him first and raised his consciousness later."
There is no "on the other hand" in this case. QUEER stopped and asked this "really wasted" guy if he wanted to proceed (which QUEER was obligated to do, given the wastedness) - and Wasted Guy thought about it. Then Wasted Guy rescinded his consent by stopping sexual activity and then rolling over and going to sleep. So the dude said NO. QUEER did the right thing by not forcing himself on the guy. End of story. Because WG said no, there is no other reality where QUEER bones him.
And yeah, what if WG had been a woman and a virgin and we were discussing this? "oh yeah just fuck her wasted ass and ask questions later."
Riiiiiiight.
There is no "on the other hand" in this case. QUEER stopped and asked this "really wasted" guy if he wanted to proceed (which QUEER was obligated to do, given the wastedness) - and Wasted Guy thought about it. Then Wasted Guy rescinded his consent by stopping sexual activity and then rolling over and going to sleep. So the dude said NO. QUEER did the right thing by not forcing himself on the guy. End of story. Because WG said no, there is no other reality where QUEER bones him.
And yeah, what if WG had been a woman and a virgin and we were discussing this? "oh yeah just fuck her wasted ass and ask questions later."
Riiiiiiight.
95
God, what a weepy bunch of vaginas on this comment thread. I can guarantee that no one who is saying this is a rape scenario has ever been raped.
96
Agree with Dan. Fuck first, then talk. Btw, the fratty is 100% gay. Similar happened to me (I was the "QUEER"), he married this girl I know, and came out 5 years later. QUEER should talk to him and help him come out - on his own terms. Good luck to both.
97
I'm sure the closet case wouldn't have said a thing to anybody after having sex w/ the writer. If he was so self-loathing there would probably be a shame factor imposed upon his own phsyce. Only if he was found out by one of his fratbrothers would he turn on the writer. Sometimes the most liberal, accepting people have a deep seeded masochism and they impose unacceptance towards themselves.
98
Yeah, what if WG had been a woman and we were discussing this? Why didn't you address that point in your advice, Dan? Oh you did? Well, maybe I should have read all of it then!
99
Do any of the people who think it's rape believe that the frat boy is actually straight? There would certainly be a better argument for him being raped (though not a fool-proof one) in that case. Not to say that you can only be raped by genders that you are not attracted to, but if the boy is gay, then the only reason he withdrew consent would have been cold feet. He's attracted to QUEER, he was horny, and he was ready to take the plunge. We can't all absolve ourselves of all responsibility for our actions if we take the first step without being 100% prepared for what comes next. If you live any kind of life worth living, you take those steps all the time.
100
I can't help but to respond as someone who has been raped.
On one hand, its kind of refreshing that folks are actually talking about rape.
And being such a charged topic, of course people are going to use the word without carefully explaining themselves first.
And being such a charged topic, its really hard to see people use the word with any carelessness... any at all.
So, @ onion:
The 'on the other hand' in this case is just as valid as any other 'what if'. What if he had never pushed the guy who was making advances ON HIM to own up to what he was doing. What if Queer and allowed himself to be seduced by straight guy without trying to make sure straight guy would still respect himself in the morning.... Just because you seem to think Queer was OBLIGATED to stop and ask the straight guy if he wanted "this" doesn't mean that was the only path that could have been taken.
As has been pointed out already, straight guy may have made assumptions that Queer was asking if he actually wanted anal... we don't know if that was Queer's intentions or not. For all we know Queer may have just been asking 'are you sure you want to be doing this (touching that we are already doing).'
The lack of defining the word 'this' may be what made straight guy clam up... who knows...
And, yeah, if a chick was wasted earlier in the evening, and was lucid enough to offer me her couch later when it was time to sleep, then insist on the bed, and then initiate groping in said bed... please do not use the word so frivously as to label the hypothetical sex that could ensue as rape. (regardless of my gender) thanks.
On one hand, its kind of refreshing that folks are actually talking about rape.
And being such a charged topic, of course people are going to use the word without carefully explaining themselves first.
And being such a charged topic, its really hard to see people use the word with any carelessness... any at all.
So, @ onion:
The 'on the other hand' in this case is just as valid as any other 'what if'. What if he had never pushed the guy who was making advances ON HIM to own up to what he was doing. What if Queer and allowed himself to be seduced by straight guy without trying to make sure straight guy would still respect himself in the morning.... Just because you seem to think Queer was OBLIGATED to stop and ask the straight guy if he wanted "this" doesn't mean that was the only path that could have been taken.
As has been pointed out already, straight guy may have made assumptions that Queer was asking if he actually wanted anal... we don't know if that was Queer's intentions or not. For all we know Queer may have just been asking 'are you sure you want to be doing this (touching that we are already doing).'
The lack of defining the word 'this' may be what made straight guy clam up... who knows...
And, yeah, if a chick was wasted earlier in the evening, and was lucid enough to offer me her couch later when it was time to sleep, then insist on the bed, and then initiate groping in said bed... please do not use the word so frivously as to label the hypothetical sex that could ensue as rape. (regardless of my gender) thanks.
101
Are we gay men so fucking desperate that we have to take advantage of drunk guys who are ambivalent about their own sexuality just to get our rocks off? Nothing would turn me off more than some guy who's half saying "Ewwwww" while I'm sucking his cock. Give me a guy who says, "Ya swallow that fucker buddy" any day. If I have to "convince" someone that I'm worth fucking by jumping a drunk guy... that's just degrading to me.
Look, we ALL went through a period where we each had to face our own sexual orientation and weigh it against society's disapproval blah blah blah. We ALL have our story. We ALL had our own timeline for coming out. The gay guy should just find another gay guy and have fun fucking. The ambivalent drunk guy will continue to test the waters by putting his arm around his friends until he finally
GROWS A PAIR OF BALLS. Until he is able to have sex without drugging / drinking himself numb, he doesn't deserve to get laid.
Look, we ALL went through a period where we each had to face our own sexual orientation and weigh it against society's disapproval blah blah blah. We ALL have our story. We ALL had our own timeline for coming out. The gay guy should just find another gay guy and have fun fucking. The ambivalent drunk guy will continue to test the waters by putting his arm around his friends until he finally
GROWS A PAIR OF BALLS. Until he is able to have sex without drugging / drinking himself numb, he doesn't deserve to get laid.
102
Oh, yeah, in answer to Queer's question of
"So have I fulfilled whatever obligations I might have had in this situation?"
I wouldn't think you were obligated to any further action or talk at all... not if you don't wish any...
But damn if I wouldn't like to hear the conversation where you ask him just what is was he thought you meant when you stopped to ask if he really wanted "this"... did you mean to imply a question of "Do you want to go 'all the way'"? or did you just mean to question if he wanted to do the groping he was already doing?
(and think about what a straight guy may assume with that implied question, and of what it might mean to continue...)
Of course, holding that conversation IS a terribly lesbo thing to do (I should know!)... so you could just do the guy thing and have just the conclusion of the conversation by (somehow) letting him know its ok to experiment without having to do any stuff he may not be sure of...
"So have I fulfilled whatever obligations I might have had in this situation?"
I wouldn't think you were obligated to any further action or talk at all... not if you don't wish any...
But damn if I wouldn't like to hear the conversation where you ask him just what is was he thought you meant when you stopped to ask if he really wanted "this"... did you mean to imply a question of "Do you want to go 'all the way'"? or did you just mean to question if he wanted to do the groping he was already doing?
(and think about what a straight guy may assume with that implied question, and of what it might mean to continue...)
Of course, holding that conversation IS a terribly lesbo thing to do (I should know!)... so you could just do the guy thing and have just the conclusion of the conversation by (somehow) letting him know its ok to experiment without having to do any stuff he may not be sure of...
103
I find it interesting that this touch a legal turn. I really should have clarified in the original letter that I was mostly concerned with the emotional side of all of this. Of course legal consequences were a secondary motive, as were just being portrayed as the villain in this situation. But mostly I didn't want to be the guy who let him regret something so potentially traumatizing just so I could blow a load. And I did want him to own up the fact that he was currently fooling around with another man so that he wouldn't wake up the next morning completely embarrassed, ashamed, and all the other closeted turmoil.
I really appreciate the insight you guys have brought with the wording I used. In my own intoxication, I didn't think at all about what 'this' meant to him. What I really meant was "are you sure you want to let this situation continue and deal with whatever comes of it later?" I didn't mean anal, though I suppose I also didn't *not* mean it either.
I really appreciate the insight you guys have brought with the wording I used. In my own intoxication, I didn't think at all about what 'this' meant to him. What I really meant was "are you sure you want to let this situation continue and deal with whatever comes of it later?" I didn't mean anal, though I suppose I also didn't *not* mean it either.
106
wtf? shitty computer. I'm sorry about that. Anyway, thank you Sabotage for saying "he was being a friend and a brother by making sure the guy was emotionally okay."
Haunted Leg, Happy Hedonism, I appreciate all your comments too. There are others, but who can remember all those names, eh?
Haunted Leg, Happy Hedonism, I appreciate all your comments too. There are others, but who can remember all those names, eh?
107
44 nailed the door shut on this discussion. Good work.
Oh, and this made me sigh: "Since when did fucking a drunk person become 'rape'?" Ask all the young men in jail after a young woman woke up and decided she is upset about what she did last night.
Happens more than we like to admit as a society.
Oh, and this made me sigh: "Since when did fucking a drunk person become 'rape'?" Ask all the young men in jail after a young woman woke up and decided she is upset about what she did last night.
Happens more than we like to admit as a society.
108
How is "lesbo it up" funny at all? Dan, you're just playing into stereotypes. What's worse is that it's coming from a supposedly "safe" person-another homosexual. Basically, you're telling women that even a fellow minority won't take them seriously. That's the worst thing I've ever heard you say buddy and I've been reading your column and some of these posts for years.
109
Next time, QUEER should quick-chuck a beer, and that way he is"incapacitated" too. From what I am reading, that means that not one, but BOTH of them were drunk, and therefore, raped, and therefore victims. It was the beer your honor! The beer is the guilty one!
110
In Seattle, rape is defined as looking at someone directly in the eye and smiling "hello," while simultaneously allowing your food co-op membership to lapse. Impossibly bad form.
111
To the people who keep calling it rape, do you even KNOW what rape means? FORCED sex is rape. Sex with someone unable to consent, or with someone who has said no, is rape. Drunk sex is NOT rape. This stupid movement to make everything without a signed witnessed contract before it rape is the stupidest thing happening today, including wars and the block against health care reform. If you don't stop to ask, during consensual sex, if the person is absolutely sure, and you two do end up having sex, that is NOT rape!
113
Wow. I can't believe the complete ignorance in these comments regarding rape. Basically what we've summed up is you need to "take responsibility for your actions" if you put yourself in a position to get raped, it's not rape if the person doesn't explicitly say no, and it's only rape if you are forced. Oh, and women lie about rape. Did I cover it all?
114
Forget the rape/not rape debate; let's talk about simple fucking decency. When you're groped by a drunken friend who has shown no interest in you (or, indeed, your entire sex) while sober, the decent thing to do is say "I'd love to, but you're pretty wasted right now," not charge ahead before they change their mind. And if you do choose to run this ethical yellow light, you should be prepared for the possibility that you'll wake up with one less friend than you had the night before.
Of course, I'm a "lesbo," so what the hell would I know?
Of course, I'm a "lesbo," so what the hell would I know?
115
@113 If you're referring to my post... No, not "take responsibility for your actions if you put yourself in a position to be raped"
If you get drunk and pass out, and someone has sex with you, then that was rape. Or you are too drunk to resist, and someone takes advantage of that, that's rape.
If you get drunk, flirt, invite someone to bed, and then initiate sex - that was you. It's possible to be fairly tipsy without being falling down, delirious drunk, blacking out or anything like that.
There's a big difference between the two situations. And if the second kind was rape, then you'd be making a large portion of both men AND women into rapists.
And I don't think anybody said you had to explicitly say no for it to be rape. People were saying that you don't have to explicitly say *yes* for it to be consent. That is, you can yes without words, just like you can say no without words.
If you get drunk and pass out, and someone has sex with you, then that was rape. Or you are too drunk to resist, and someone takes advantage of that, that's rape.
If you get drunk, flirt, invite someone to bed, and then initiate sex - that was you. It's possible to be fairly tipsy without being falling down, delirious drunk, blacking out or anything like that.
There's a big difference between the two situations. And if the second kind was rape, then you'd be making a large portion of both men AND women into rapists.
And I don't think anybody said you had to explicitly say no for it to be rape. People were saying that you don't have to explicitly say *yes* for it to be consent. That is, you can yes without words, just like you can say no without words.
116
I don't think this was in any way potentially rape, or Dan advocating rape. But nor do I agree with the consensus that this guy is potentially gay and in the closet. I got the sense that he's just a bi-curious straight who wanted to fool around in a haze of "drunkenness", so that he wouldn't have to own up to his actions later. That would explain why he folded when questioned - harder to later claim no memory/no responsibility. I think it would have been quite ok to continue without "checking in". As long as he was actively participating, no boundaries would have been crossed. Though it could have been a pain for QUEER later if he decided he regretted it, so probably best it ended how it did.
117
From a legal standpoint, he was risking a rape charge in several states. Morally speaking, no way in hell would it have been rape.
And unless the guy was blackout drunk and didn't know what happened until the next day, realistically, as long as the gay guy kept it to himself it simply wasn't going to result in an accusation.
And unless the guy was blackout drunk and didn't know what happened until the next day, realistically, as long as the gay guy kept it to himself it simply wasn't going to result in an accusation.
118
@115 I think you are missing the point that in several states, the law unfortunately makes no distinction between the scenarios you describe. In the second situation, usually the "victim" doesn't consider him/herself as such. (But the anti-rape people count them to inflate the stats on sexual assault, and every so often some poor guy gets dragged through the mud by some woman who changes her mind the next day.)
119
whoa - dan didn't advocate doing the straight dude after he passed out. dan told QUEER that maybe he should have NOT had "the conversation" and just let things run their course. which would have been consensual sex. how is NOT having a conversation equivalent to rape?
Is what dan said. since when is "raised his consciousness" equivalent to "asking for consent"?
y'all are a bunch of whiners
done him first and raised his consciousness later
Is what dan said. since when is "raised his consciousness" equivalent to "asking for consent"?
y'all are a bunch of whiners
120
I think the lesbo it up comment was hilarious. I barely scanned the comments enough to see that some people objected to it. What Dan was getting at here is the difference between male and female approaches toward sex. The gay twist was already in the story which is why lesbo was more appropriate than some sort of generic woman type comment as well as being pithy, which is important to humor. But you know, explaining a joke......
On another note, the letter writer acted just the way many straight boys act toward women, with just the same results. This guy he was with was willing to have sex as long as he didn't have to examine what was going on too closely. The same is true with lots of women. Asking him to take responsibility and agency for getting laid killed the mood as surely as it does for lots of women. He may be gay, but he had a profoundly straight experience that night. A straight, nice boy experience that ended like all nice boy experiences do: chastity.
On another note, the letter writer acted just the way many straight boys act toward women, with just the same results. This guy he was with was willing to have sex as long as he didn't have to examine what was going on too closely. The same is true with lots of women. Asking him to take responsibility and agency for getting laid killed the mood as surely as it does for lots of women. He may be gay, but he had a profoundly straight experience that night. A straight, nice boy experience that ended like all nice boy experiences do: chastity.
121
Kersy, please stop overreacting. Since I've basically read the entire thread in one sitting, I feel confident in saying that no one here has accused ALL women of lying about rape. That would be an incredibly stupid generalization, just as it is stupid to assume that no woman has ever lied about being raped. The world exists in shades of gray and people of varying morals... That's why any rape case must be dealt with in a sensitive matter towards both parties until guilt is established, lest the innocent (whomever that may be) ends up traumatized for the rest of their lives.
122
DAN SAVAGES HOSTILITY TOWARDS LESBIANS IS WELL DOCUMENTED THIS LATEST INFURIATING CONDESCENSION ON HIS PART IS NOTHING NEW IF YOUR NOT AN ATTRACTIVE GAY white man THEN YOU ARE NOTHING IN HIS EYES AT LEAST HE IS STARTING TO REALIZE THAT HE AND HIS RPLACE MAFIA WERE FOOLED AND THAT WE ARE ALL UNDER THE SAME BUS OR RATHER THE SAME TRAIN TO THE CAMPS IF YOU WILL AND HE WILL IF HE KNOWS WHAT IS GOOD FOR HIM WHICH I DOUBT
123
R-Place mafia? I haven't been to R-Place in, shit, five or ten years.
But, yeah, under the bus the rest of yoose!
But, yeah, under the bus the rest of yoose!
124
Wow...The guy had been putting the moves on Queer for a full 48 hours prior to the thwarted "rape." Dan advised Queer that in a situation like that, probably best to stick to manual labor with maybe a little oral thrown in. At no time did he say "Climb on that ass, use spit for lube, wreck that rectum and seed that fratboy culo." He talked about "low-stakes, less-threatening" sexplay - the kind of action that's very easy to interrupt no harm done, psychic or otherwise.
As far as Dan's comment on Queer "lesbo-ing" out; perhaps it was a horrible, dehumanizing slap at lesbians, or maybe it was a hilarious joke about a rather shopworn lesbian stereotype. Some of the responses make me really glad the lesbians I know have senses of humor. Be that as it may, as a young, pansexual college student, the last thing I wanted to do in the heat of the moment was stop and process the implications of the course of action we were about to take - so we didn't, and most of the time, it worked out fine and I somehow managed to avoid raping anyone. (Why anyone would force themselves on someone who isn't interested or is passed out was, and remains, beyond me).
I say Queer should have had fun with his fratbro, and assisted fratbro in his post-pop "processing" only when and if fratbro asked.
As far as Dan's comment on Queer "lesbo-ing" out; perhaps it was a horrible, dehumanizing slap at lesbians, or maybe it was a hilarious joke about a rather shopworn lesbian stereotype. Some of the responses make me really glad the lesbians I know have senses of humor. Be that as it may, as a young, pansexual college student, the last thing I wanted to do in the heat of the moment was stop and process the implications of the course of action we were about to take - so we didn't, and most of the time, it worked out fine and I somehow managed to avoid raping anyone. (Why anyone would force themselves on someone who isn't interested or is passed out was, and remains, beyond me).
I say Queer should have had fun with his fratbro, and assisted fratbro in his post-pop "processing" only when and if fratbro asked.
125
Waaaaay late reply to Haunted Leg: I didn't call you dumb, I called your rape accusations dumb. The problem for me isn't that you said QUEER leaves himself open to rape accusations--because that's NOT what you initially said.
You initially said (to paraphrase) that if QUEER went ahead as Savage suggested without getting verbal consent, it would have been rape.
Well, no. No it would not have. Dude was massaging QUEER's regions, dude was consenting. This has been discussed over and over and overandoverandover.
Your disagreement with Dan is completely reasonable. But your initial invocation of rape was alarmist, goofy and out of touch with the facts as given by QUEER.
You are probably not dumb. You are maybe, possibly, projecting another lively argument you've had about rape and consent into this conversation, is all.
And it's good that you're against rape. Everyone's with you on that. Except Loveschild probably.
You initially said (to paraphrase) that if QUEER went ahead as Savage suggested without getting verbal consent, it would have been rape.
Well, no. No it would not have. Dude was massaging QUEER's regions, dude was consenting. This has been discussed over and over and overandoverandover.
Your disagreement with Dan is completely reasonable. But your initial invocation of rape was alarmist, goofy and out of touch with the facts as given by QUEER.
You are probably not dumb. You are maybe, possibly, projecting another lively argument you've had about rape and consent into this conversation, is all.
And it's good that you're against rape. Everyone's with you on that. Except Loveschild probably.
126
@16 etc, you're wrong. Having sex with a drunk person is rape, if the intoxication is sufficient to negative their consent. In the state I live in (albeit in Australia), this is explicitly set out in statute.
The poster did absolutely the right thing. If you're not sure if consent is consciously present, proceeding with the encounter risks the possibly unwitting commission of one of the most heinous crimes in the entire criminal code.
You were 100% wrong on this one Dan.
The poster did absolutely the right thing. If you're not sure if consent is consciously present, proceeding with the encounter risks the possibly unwitting commission of one of the most heinous crimes in the entire criminal code.
You were 100% wrong on this one Dan.
127
And if both parties are equally hammered, as is often the case in Australia? What then, Steve? A joint trial? Adjoining cells? A double execution?
128
Hey I'm getting out of my depth here Dan because I'm not a criminal lawyer, but my understanding is that it comes down to consent. I know it can get ridiculous, and I take the point of your hypothetical, but if one party is lucid enough to perceive that the apparent consent of the other party isn't actually instant, then that party ought abort. If consent is present, drunk or sober it's clearly not rape. If absence of consent is masked by intoxication, that's where the danger lies, for both of them. If there both completely wasted and neither is consenting, then I've got no idea what the technical legal status is, but imagine that common sense would prevail.
I worded my post carefully. It's rape "if" intoxication is sufficient to negative consent, and proceeding if you're not sure about consent "risks" the commission of an offence. Basically what I'm signposting here is that the poster was there and obviously sensed that something may not be right. I think he acted prudently and decently, and I personally think your advice here was wrong. Of course I say that with love in my heart as you know. :)
These laws are here for a reason though. They may cast the net too wide in some circumstances, but the old date rape scenario of the POS getting the girl drunk is a real problem, and these laws aim to cut that out.
Ps. Touche on the Australian comment...
I worded my post carefully. It's rape "if" intoxication is sufficient to negative consent, and proceeding if you're not sure about consent "risks" the commission of an offence. Basically what I'm signposting here is that the poster was there and obviously sensed that something may not be right. I think he acted prudently and decently, and I personally think your advice here was wrong. Of course I say that with love in my heart as you know. :)
These laws are here for a reason though. They may cast the net too wide in some circumstances, but the old date rape scenario of the POS getting the girl drunk is a real problem, and these laws aim to cut that out.
Ps. Touche on the Australian comment...
129
@128, Re-reading all the above I need to clarify: I'm certainly not suggesting for a minute that you advocated rape Dan, like another poster here did. That would have been offensive in the extreme (to mis-quote your recent podcast, a false accusation of advocation of rape is, in a sense, an act of rape).
I'm also not suggesting that this scenario would have been rape if the poster hadn't have warned off the frat boy: it clearly wouldn't have been for the reasons everyone has already suggested.
I'm just suggesting that your advice was unsound because of the risks associated with sailing close to the wind on shagging when boozed, namely that the lines become horribly blurred and prudence would suggest treading cautiously.
Hope I didn't cause any offence by not being clear about that. :(
I'm also not suggesting that this scenario would have been rape if the poster hadn't have warned off the frat boy: it clearly wouldn't have been for the reasons everyone has already suggested.
I'm just suggesting that your advice was unsound because of the risks associated with sailing close to the wind on shagging when boozed, namely that the lines become horribly blurred and prudence would suggest treading cautiously.
Hope I didn't cause any offence by not being clear about that. :(
Advertisement
Most Commented on Slog
-
SL Letter of the Day: Life Sentence by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: Daddy Loves Who? by Dan Savage
-
Required Listening: Howard Stern on Ellen, JC Penney, Bullied Gay Kids, Rosie, Santorum, Bachmann, et al by Dan Savage
-
Crowdsourcing Uncut Police Video from the Dec. 12 Occupy Protest at the Port of Seattle by Eli Sanders
-
State Legislator Testifies That His Opposition to Same-Sex Marriage Came to Him from a Commercial for Jack in the Box by Christopher Frizzelle
-
"Let me be the first one to say: My business will refuse to participate in a same-sex marriage ceremony," by Republican Representative Matt Shea of the Spokane Valley by Eli Sanders
-
The Onion Is on a Roll: "Iran Worried U.S. Might Be Building 8,500th Nuclear Weapon" by Charles Mudede
-
"I don't know if I want to be here [if gay marriage passes]," by Republican State Senator Jay Rodne of North Bend by Eli Sanders
-
Announcing The Stranger's Tournament of Dunces! Who's the Dumbest Representative in the State House? by Christopher Frizzelle
-
Republicans Put Gay Marriage on the Ballot at Their Own Risk by Goldy
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (130) RSS