Emma Sulkowicz aka Mattress Girl

sarahufl

MagicInk said:

kkitkat79 said:

Something else that's been bothering me. What if both people are drunk?

Then no one fucks. 

Honestly, this.

It isn't that hard to understand. And actually should be that straight foward.

VulgarGirl

sarahufl said:

MagicInk said:

kkitkat79 said:

Something else that's been bothering me. What if both people are drunk?

Then no one fucks. 

Honestly, this.

It isn't that hard to understand. And actually should be that straight foward.

They really should just let me teach sex ed to people.

WinstonsGirl

Finally made it this far.  I have to thank you ladies, cos I'm scheduled to teach Health next year (not sure between grades 7-9) and this is giving me so many ideas for a huge unit on consent to tack on to the sex-ed unit.  I may bug you all again next year to remind me of some of these issues so we can have some great discussions with my classes.  

huskypuppy14

So are you saying that in our society legally sane adults still my not know that one should not do something that is wrong? If that is the case, it is horrifying to me. That is something children are taught at like 2 years old, maybe earlier. Then you just teach them what is wrong and what is not.

Some people are never taught things. Some people on this forum were never taught proper sex ed. Some parents never talk about sex to their kids. If parents/teachers can't properly teach kids actual facts about their own body, do you really think they are teaching them about consent in regards to rape?

kkitkat79

huskypuppy14 said:

So are you saying that in our society legally sane adults still my not know that one should not do something that is wrong? If that is the case, it is horrifying to me. That is something children are taught at like 2 years old, maybe earlier. Then you just teach them what is wrong and what is not.

Some people are never taught things. Some people on this forum were never taught proper sex ed. Some parents never talk about sex to their kids. If parents/teachers can't properly teach kids actual facts about their own body, do you really think they are teaching them about consent in regards to rape?

Where in my quote above I said anything about children being taught proper sex ed? Honestly, words have meanings. I said children are taught not to do wrong. So if they know something is wrong they will not not to do it. That is taught at age two (let's say). What are the actual things that are wrong are taught in different stages of life. Then people put the two pieces of information together and act accordingly (or not). Let me simplify. At the age of 2 Henry/ Lisa were taught that one should not do bad things. So now they know not to do wrong. Let's all agree that at the age of two they don't know what rape is. At the age of 16 they were taught what rape is and that it is wrong. Now they take the skill they learned at two together with information about rape and hopefully know not to rape. But you haven't taught them not to rape at 16, you taught them not to rape at two, they just didn't know it. So when it comes to adults, they already should know the lesson from the age of two. They may still need the lesson from the age of 16, but these are two different lessons. I do not think you can teach an adult not to do wrong. They either learned that at two or they didn't. You can teach them what wrong is so they can apply their skill of not doing wrong appropriately. If I didn't think that distinction was important I would not argue it. I think one of the reasons there are such huge issues with education about rape is because of the language being chosen. What would you be more open to "Let me tell you about what consent is" or " let me teach you how not to rape"? Everyone know that rape is bad, so when you put it that way it infantilizes your potential audience. And one can argue that it doesn't matter, but I think If one wants to get attention one should cater the the audience. And if the audience are adults talk to them as if they are.

kkitkat79

sarahufl said:

MagicInk said:

kkitkat79 said:

Something else that's been bothering me. What if both people are drunk?

Then no one fucks. 

Honestly, this.

It isn't that hard to understand. And actually should be that straight foward.

I hardly think these issues should be trivialized. If my understanding is correct, and I would be happy to stand corrected, one is incapable of initiating sex when drunk, as in if a drunk person comes on to me, I should not have sex with them because they are drunk and cannot give consent. Is that view correct?

LondonLisa

I really just wish kids were forced to watch this: 

https://player.vimeo.com/video/126553913

huskypuppy14

kkitkat79 said:

huskypuppy14 said:

So are you saying that in our society legally sane adults still my not know that one should not do something that is wrong? If that is the case, it is horrifying to me. That is something children are taught at like 2 years old, maybe earlier. Then you just teach them what is wrong and what is not.

Some people are never taught things. Some people on this forum were never taught proper sex ed. Some parents never talk about sex to their kids. If parents/teachers can't properly teach kids actual facts about their own body, do you really think they are teaching them about consent in regards to rape?

Where in my quote above I said anything about children being taught proper sex ed? Honestly, words have meanings. I said children are taught not to do wrong. So if they know something is wrong they will not not to do it. That is taught at age two (let's say). What are the actual things that are wrong are taught in different stages of life. Then people put the two pieces of information together and act accordingly (or not). Let me simplify. At the age of 2 Henry/ Lisa were taught that one should not do bad things. So now they know not to do wrong. Let's all agree that at the age of two they don't know what rape is. At the age of 16 they were taught what rape is and that it is wrong. Now they take the skill they learned at two together with information about rape and hopefully know not to rape. But you haven't taught them not to rape at 16, you taught them not to rape at two, they just didn't know it. So when it comes to adults, they already should know the lesson from the age of two. They may still need the lesson from the age of 16, but these are two different lessons. I do not think you can teach an adult not to do wrong. They either learned that at two or they didn't. You can teach them what wrong is so they can apply their skill of not doing wrong appropriately. If I didn't think that distinction was important I would not argue it. I think one of the reasons there are such huge issues with education about rape is because of the language being chosen. What would you be more open to "Let me tell you about what consent is" or " let me teach you how not to rape"? Everyone know that rape is bad, so when you put it that way it infantilizes your potential audience. And one can argue that it doesn't matter, but I think If one wants to get attention one should cater the the audience. And if the audience are adults talk to them as if they are.

Consent and not raping go hand and hand. What don't you understand about that?

And people may not know that certain instances of rape are actually rape, so they need to be educated in that. They need to be educated that having sex with an intoxicated person who can't give consent is rape. And I think 16 is way too old to be having this conversation. Maybe not at 2, but maybe 12? 

And I brought up sex ed, because if parents aren't teaching their kids about sex, they are certainly not educating them on rape. 

VulgarGirl

kkitkat79 said:

huskypuppy14 said:

So are you saying that in our society legally sane adults still my not know that one should not do something that is wrong? If that is the case, it is horrifying to me. That is something children are taught at like 2 years old, maybe earlier. Then you just teach them what is wrong and what is not.

Some people are never taught things. Some people on this forum were never taught proper sex ed. Some parents never talk about sex to their kids. If parents/teachers can't properly teach kids actual facts about their own body, do you really think they are teaching them about consent in regards to rape?

Where in my quote above I said anything about children being taught proper sex ed? Honestly, words have meanings. I said children are taught not to do wrong. So if they know something is wrong they will not not to do it. That is taught at age two (let's say). What are the actual things that are wrong are taught in different stages of life. Then people put the two pieces of information together and act accordingly (or not). Let me simplify. At the age of 2 Henry/ Lisa were taught that one should not do bad things. So now they know not to do wrong. Let's all agree that at the age of two they don't know what rape is. At the age of 16 they were taught what rape is and that it is wrong. Now they take the skill they learned at two together with information about rape and hopefully know not to rape. But you haven't taught them not to rape at 16, you taught them not to rape at two, they just didn't know it. So when it comes to adults, they already should know the lesson from the age of two. They may still need the lesson from the age of 16, but these are two different lessons. I do not think you can teach an adult not to do wrong. They either learned that at two or they didn't. You can teach them what wrong is so they can apply their skill of not doing wrong appropriately. If I didn't think that distinction was important I would not argue it. I think one of the reasons there are such huge issues with education about rape is because of the language being chosen. What would you be more open to "Let me tell you about what consent is" or " let me teach you how not to rape"? Everyone know that rape is bad, so when you put it that way it infantilizes your potential audience. And one can argue that it doesn't matter, but I think If one wants to get attention one should cater the the audience. And if the audience are adults talk to them as if they are.

At this point I believe you're being purposley obtuse. And I would not be shocked to learn you were troll just trying to stir the pot.

Also 16 is way too late to be teaching about rape. Kids need to learn they have a right to their own bodies from the start. And that they have a right to say no to touching and other people need to respect that and if those people don't they are the wrong ones.

Education, of all forms, is fucking ongoing. Not just 'Here is part one, part two will come later". And you need to fucking reinforce right from wrong. All the motherfucking time. If you didn't, we wouldn't need jails. 

novella1186

MagicInk said:

kkitkat79 said:

huskypuppy14 said:

So are you saying that in our society legally sane adults still my not know that one should not do something that is wrong? If that is the case, it is horrifying to me. That is something children are taught at like 2 years old, maybe earlier. Then you just teach them what is wrong and what is not.

Some people are never taught things. Some people on this forum were never taught proper sex ed. Some parents never talk about sex to their kids. If parents/teachers can't properly teach kids actual facts about their own body, do you really think they are teaching them about consent in regards to rape?

Where in my quote above I said anything about children being taught proper sex ed? Honestly, words have meanings. I said children are taught not to do wrong. So if they know something is wrong they will not not to do it. That is taught at age two (let's say). What are the actual things that are wrong are taught in different stages of life. Then people put the two pieces of information together and act accordingly (or not). Let me simplify. At the age of 2 Henry/ Lisa were taught that one should not do bad things. So now they know not to do wrong. Let's all agree that at the age of two they don't know what rape is. At the age of 16 they were taught what rape is and that it is wrong. Now they take the skill they learned at two together with information about rape and hopefully know not to rape. But you haven't taught them not to rape at 16, you taught them not to rape at two, they just didn't know it. So when it comes to adults, they already should know the lesson from the age of two. They may still need the lesson from the age of 16, but these are two different lessons. I do not think you can teach an adult not to do wrong. They either learned that at two or they didn't. You can teach them what wrong is so they can apply their skill of not doing wrong appropriately. If I didn't think that distinction was important I would not argue it. I think one of the reasons there are such huge issues with education about rape is because of the language being chosen. What would you be more open to "Let me tell you about what consent is" or " let me teach you how not to rape"? Everyone know that rape is bad, so when you put it that way it infantilizes your potential audience. And one can argue that it doesn't matter, but I think If one wants to get attention one should cater the the audience. And if the audience are adults talk to them as if they are.

At this point I believe you're being purposley obtuse. And I would not be shocked to learn you were troll just trying to stir the pot.

Also 16 is way too late to be teaching about rape. Kids need to learn they have a right to their own bodies from the start. And that they have a right to say no to touching and other people need to respect that and if those people don't they are the wrong ones.

Education, of all forms, is fucking ongoing. Not just 'Here is part one, part two will come later". And you need to fucking reinforce right from wrong. All the motherfucking time. If you didn't, we wouldn't need jails. 

I'm gonna have to agree with the bolded. This has become mind-numbing and kind of silly. It seems that everyone is saying the exact same thing except that you are picking apart words and phrasing so that you can argue for the sake of arguing. What's the point? (ETA: "you" meaning kkitkat) 

[Deleted User]

.

redoryx

pinkrevenge said:

Add me to the "Purposely being obtuse" line.

Me as well. 

justsie

kkitkat79 said:

sarahufl said:

MagicInk said:

kkitkat79 said:

Something else that's been bothering me. What if both people are drunk?

Then no one fucks. 

Honestly, this.

It isn't that hard to understand. And actually should be that straight foward.

I hardly think these issues should be trivialized. If my understanding is correct, and I would be happy to stand corrected, one is incapable of initiating sex when drunk, as in if a drunk person comes on to me, I should not have sex with them because they are drunk and cannot give consent. Is that view correct?

Yes. Someone who is impaired cannot give consent. If a drunk person comes onto you, and you have sex with them, you have just had sex with someone who could not legally give consent. Therefore you have raped them. 

ETA: The only person that seems to be trying to trivialize things is you....

thisismynickname2

justsie said:

kkitkat79 said:

sarahufl said:

MagicInk said:

kkitkat79 said:

Something else that's been bothering me. What if both people are drunk?

Then no one fucks. 

Honestly, this.

It isn't that hard to understand. And actually should be that straight foward.

I hardly think these issues should be trivialized. If my understanding is correct, and I would be happy to stand corrected, one is incapable of initiating sex when drunk, as in if a drunk person comes on to me, I should not have sex with them because they are drunk and cannot give consent. Is that view correct?

Yes. Someone who is impaired cannot give consent. If a drunk person comes onto you, and you have sex with them, you have just had sex with someone who could not legally give consent. Therefore you have raped them. 

ETA: The only person that seems to be trying to trivialize things is you....

So, I have been following this thread and reflecting on my college years and the years immediately following. 

For me, and for surely a lot of people, alcohol lowers inhibitions. I am very shy and would use alcohol as "liquid courage" to talk and flirt with guys I was interested in. I can remember one guy who asked me if I was drunk as we were making out, I said no even though I really was. We didn't have sex that night. But, I had been on a few dates with this other guy, and we got really drunk together. In the morning he was like, "Wow, great sex!" and I didn't remember it at all. However, I laughed about this to my friend. My thought was, "Shit, he was really hot, I wish I remember doing that!" Because sometimes, back then, I did get black-out drunk. That was the only time I don't remember sleeping with someone, but I have no doubt that whatever I felt like at the time, I wanted him. I would have slept with him stone-cold sober. So I have never believed or felt like in the slightest that I was raped. But by the definitions presented here... I was. 

Maybe behavior such as mine here is why guys are aghast when accused of rape... I laughed about it, but maybe other girls wouldn't have. 

For the record, I don't drink to excess like that anymore because I came to realize how dangerous it was. 

PrettyGirlLost

kkitkat79 said:

huskypuppy14 said:

So are you saying that in our society legally sane adults still my not know that one should not do something that is wrong? If that is the case, it is horrifying to me. That is something children are taught at like 2 years old, maybe earlier. Then you just teach them what is wrong and what is not.

Some people are never taught things. Some people on this forum were never taught proper sex ed. Some parents never talk about sex to their kids. If parents/teachers can't properly teach kids actual facts about their own body, do you really think they are teaching them about consent in regards to rape?

Where in my quote above I said anything about children being taught proper sex ed? Honestly, words have meanings. I said children are taught not to do wrong. So if they know something is wrong they will not not to do it.   This is actually false.  Children, as a sweeping generalization, do shit they know is wrong all the damn time!  Same with adults.  If you think that people ONLY do things that are considered wrong- illegal, immoral, etc. because they don't know any better, you are mistaken.  Conversely, if you think that people who know better never do anything wrong, you are mistaken.  That is taught at age two (let's say). What are the actual things that are wrong are taught in different stages of life. Then people put the two pieces of information together and act accordingly (or not). Let me simplify. At the age of 2 Henry/ Lisa were taught that one should not do bad things. So now they know not to do wrong. Let's all agree that at the age of two they don't know what rape is. At the age of 16 they were taught what rape is and that it is wrong. Now they take the skill they learned at two together with information about rape and hopefully know not to rape. But you haven't taught them not to rape at 16, you taught them not to rape at two, they just didn't know it. So when it comes to adults, they already should know the lesson from the age of two. They may still need the lesson from the age of 16, but these are two different lessons. I do not think you can teach an adult not to do wrong. Absolutely you can teach an adult what "wrong" is and how not to do wrong.  What you are actually trying to say is that you cannot control the actions of another adult, no matter what you teach them.  They either learned that at two or they didn't. You can teach them what wrong is so they can apply their skill of not doing wrong appropriately. If I didn't think that distinction was important I would not argue it. I think one of the reasons there are such huge issues with education about rape is because of the language being chosen. What would you be more open to "Let me tell you about what consent is" or " let me teach you how not to rape"? Everyone know that rape is bad, so when you put it that way it infantilizes your potential audience. And one can argue that it doesn't matter, but I think If one wants to get attention one should cater the the audience. And if the audience are adults talk to them as if they are.

huskypuppy14

thisismynickname said:

justsie said:

kkitkat79 said:

sarahufl said:

MagicInk said:

kkitkat79 said:

Something else that's been bothering me. What if both people are drunk?

Then no one fucks. 

Honestly, this.

It isn't that hard to understand. And actually should be that straight foward.

I hardly think these issues should be trivialized. If my understanding is correct, and I would be happy to stand corrected, one is incapable of initiating sex when drunk, as in if a drunk person comes on to me, I should not have sex with them because they are drunk and cannot give consent. Is that view correct?

Yes. Someone who is impaired cannot give consent. If a drunk person comes onto you, and you have sex with them, you have just had sex with someone who could not legally give consent. Therefore you have raped them. 

ETA: The only person that seems to be trying to trivialize things is you....

So, I have been following this thread and reflecting on my college years and the years immediately following. 

For me, and for surely a lot of people, alcohol lowers inhibitions. I am very shy and would use alcohol as "liquid courage" to talk and flirt with guys I was interested in. I can remember one guy who asked me if I was drunk as we were making out, I said no even though I really was. We didn't have sex that night. But, I had been on a few dates with this other guy, and we got really drunk together. In the morning he was like, "Wow, great sex!" and I didn't remember it at all. However, I laughed about this to my friend. My thought was, "Shit, he was really hot, I wish I remember doing that!" Because sometimes, back then, I did get black-out drunk. That was the only time I don't remember sleeping with someone, but I have no doubt that whatever I felt like at the time, I wanted him. I would have slept with him stone-cold sober. So I have never believed or felt like in the slightest that I was raped. But by the definitions presented here... I was. 

Maybe behavior such as mine here is why guys are aghast when accused of rape... I laughed about it, but maybe other girls wouldn't have. 

For the record, I don't drink to excess like that anymore because I came to realize how dangerous it was. 

If my husband comes over and slaps my ass, I like it. If a stranger does it, it's assault. If a co worker does it, it's sexual harassment/assault. 

I'm sure many/most of us have had inebriated sex with our SO.

Now you don't think you were raped, and that is fine. My husband was pretty wasted on our wedding night, did I rape him? No, I don't think so. 

If I have a son, I would teach him that your situation is not a good time to be having sex with someone, because you could accuse him of rape. 

thisismynickname2

huskypuppy14 said: thisismynickname said: justsie said: kkitkat79 said: sarahufl said: MagicInk said: kkitkat79 said: Something else that's been bothering me. What if both people are drunk? Then no one fucks.  Honestly, this.
It isn't that hard to understand. And actually should be that straight foward.
I hardly think these issues should be trivialized. If my understanding is correct, and I would be happy to stand corrected, one is incapable of initiating sex when drunk, as in if a drunk person comes on to me, I should not have sex with them because they are drunk and cannot give consent. Is that view correct? Yes. Someone who is impaired cannot give consent. If a drunk person comes onto you, and you have sex with them, you have just had sex with someone who could not legally give consent. Therefore you have raped them. 
ETA: The only person that seems to be trying to trivialize things is you.... So, I have been following this thread and reflecting on my college years and the years immediately following. For me, and for surely a lot of people, alcohol lowers inhibitions. I am very shy and would use alcohol as "liquid courage" to talk and flirt with guys I was interested in. I can remember one guy who asked me if I was drunk as we were making out, I said no even though I really was. We didn't have sex that night. But, I had been on a few dates with this other guy, and we got really drunk together. In the morning he was like, "Wow, great sex!" and I didn't remember it at all. However, I laughed about this to my friend. My thought was, "Shit, he was really hot, I wish I remember doing that!" Because sometimes, back then, I did get black-out drunk. That was the only time I don't remember sleeping with someone, but I have no doubt that whatever I felt like at the time, I wanted him. I would have slept with him stone-cold sober. So I have never believed or felt like in the slightest that I was raped. But by the definitions presented here... I was. Maybe behavior such as mine here is why guys are aghast when accused of rape... I laughed about it, but maybe other girls wouldn't have. For the record, I don't drink to excess like that anymore because I came to realize how dangerous it was.  If my husband comes over and slaps my ass, I like it. If a stranger does it, it's assault. If a co worker does it, it's sexual harassment/assault. 
I'm sure many/most of us have had inebriated sex with our SO.
Now you don't think you were raped, and that is fine. My husband was pretty wasted on our wedding night, did I rape him? No, I don't think so. 
If I have a son, I would teach him that your situation is not a good time to be having sex with someone, because you could accuse him of rape. 
But as has been already discussed at length in this thread, prior consent does not mean future consent. So any one of us who has inebriated sex with our SO could accuse them of rape at any time. So nobody should ever have inebriated sex because one could be accused, because inebriated people cannot give consent. 

....... If a person doesn't think they were raped, they weren't. If they think they were raped, they were. I think it would be very hard to teach our children about the risks involved if consent isn't always clear. So, I don't agree with automatically saying that a drunk person who comes onto another person is raped by the person who accepted the come-on. 

huskypuppy14

Snip

y discussed at length in this thread, prior consent does not mean future consent. So any one of us who has inebriated sex with our SO could accuse them of rape at any time. So nobody should ever have inebriated sex because one could be accused, because inebriated people cannot give consent. 

....... If a person doesn't think they were raped, they weren't. If they think they were raped, they were. I think it would be very hard to teach our children about the risks involved if consent isn't always clear. So, I don't agree with automatically saying that a drunk person who comes onto another person is raped by the person who accepted the come-on. 

You just have to be 100% sure that the person you are having sex with, wants it. 

justsie

Not even going to fuss with the boxes right now:

I 100% agree with what was said above, it is up to the person whether they want to define what happened to them as rape or not. I would much rather have a few extra moments when I (or my partner) decided to not have sex because one or both of us were under the influence than have one of us have sex with the other when it wasn't actually wanted and only done because they were under the influcance. 

levioosa

thisismynickname said:

huskypuppy14 said:

thisismynickname said:

justsie said:

kkitkat79 said:

sarahufl said:

MagicInk said:

kkitkat79 said:

Something else that's been bothering me. What if both people are drunk?

Then no one fucks. 

Honestly, this.

It isn't that hard to understand. And actually should be that straight foward.

I hardly think these issues should be trivialized. If my understanding is correct, and I would be happy to stand corrected, one is incapable of initiating sex when drunk, as in if a drunk person comes on to me, I should not have sex with them because they are drunk and cannot give consent. Is that view correct?

Yes. Someone who is impaired cannot give consent. If a drunk person comes onto you, and you have sex with them, you have just had sex with someone who could not legally give consent. Therefore you have raped them. 

ETA: The only person that seems to be trying to trivialize things is you....

So, I have been following this thread and reflecting on my college years and the years immediately following. 

For me, and for surely a lot of people, alcohol lowers inhibitions. I am very shy and would use alcohol as "liquid courage" to talk and flirt with guys I was interested in. I can remember one guy who asked me if I was drunk as we were making out, I said no even though I really was. We didn't have sex that night. But, I had been on a few dates with this other guy, and we got really drunk together. In the morning he was like, "Wow, great sex!" and I didn't remember it at all. However, I laughed about this to my friend. My thought was, "Shit, he was really hot, I wish I remember doing that!" Because sometimes, back then, I did get black-out drunk. That was the only time I don't remember sleeping with someone, but I have no doubt that whatever I felt like at the time, I wanted him. I would have slept with him stone-cold sober. So I have never believed or felt like in the slightest that I was raped. But by the definitions presented here... I was. 

Maybe behavior such as mine here is why guys are aghast when accused of rape... I laughed about it, but maybe other girls wouldn't have. 

For the record, I don't drink to excess like that anymore because I came to realize how dangerous it was. 

If my husband comes over and slaps my ass, I like it. If a stranger does it, it's assault. If a co worker does it, it's sexual harassment/assault. 

I'm sure many/most of us have had inebriated sex with our SO.

Now you don't think you were raped, and that is fine. My husband was pretty wasted on our wedding night, did I rape him? No, I don't think so. 

If I have a son, I would teach him that your situation is not a good time to be having sex with someone, because you could accuse him of rape. 

But as has been already discussed at length in this thread, prior consent does not mean future consent. So any one of us who has inebriated sex with our SO could accuse them of rape at any time. So nobody should ever have inebriated sex because one could be accused, because inebriated people cannot give consent. 

....... If a person doesn't think they were raped, they weren't. If they think they were raped, they were. I think it would be very hard to teach our children about the risks involved if consent isn't always clear. So, I don't agree with automatically saying that a drunk person who comes onto another person is raped by the person who accepted the come-on. 

EFFING BOXES

To the bolded, I don't agree with that completely, which leads to the whole dance we've been doing in this thread.  My friend and I were talking the other day, and she mentioned a party she went to when she was eighteen.  She was really drunk, and a graduate student coerced her into having sex, even though she said no at first (she never really said yes, she just stopped resisting).  She then went on to say, "But I didn't really think it was rape, because we were both drunk.  But I didn't like it."  I told her that yes, that absolutely counted as rape, and being drunk is not an excuse to sleep with someone when they deny consent. Not only is she still thinking about it almost ten years later, but it really did change the course of her life and her decisions.  She was raped again this past weekend, but she said that she was drunk.  She was also roofied.  She didn't seek help from the police.  She didn't go to a hospital. She felt like it was too much to do because she was drinking and she knew she'd be blamed for it.   She's not okay, and it sucks.  We have more safeguards in place for rapists than we do victims.  

[Deleted User]

arrippa said:

thisismynickname said:

MagicInk said:

Of course, because people are shitty, there people saying there was no rape, she's just doing for attention, blah de blah. 

---------box----------

Just to this point, SMH because who the hell would want to carry around a mattress and pretend to have been raped, for attention? Really? REALLY? 

I applaud her. 

I believe she was raped and carrying the mattress was an idea that she got from it. But I also heard that she got credit for a senior project called "Carrying That Weight" while carrying it.

--------EDITED FOR BOXES-----------

I wrote a poem about my rape in college and won a competition with it.

So does that make my rapist any less of a fucking rapist?