Update
New hint: it has to do with the fact that sex is not a single, instantaneous act.
By the time we'd finished up in class today, all of the groups had gone through the major explicit claims that the three men were making, to support their position that a reasonable person would have thought that Angelica was consenting.
Instructions
I'm going to reproduce that argument below. There's a key step in their argument that's missing, though. This is an implicit claim. It's one that their argument relies on, but it's never stated.
In the comments, try to identify which claim is missing from the argument.
Remember: this will be a claim that is required for their argument to work, but which they never state out loud.
The Mens' Argument:
A Reasonable Person Would Have Thought that Angelica Was Consenting
- Angelica attended a party at BOZ, which has a reputation for being wild;
- Angelica drank alcohol at that party, specifically alcohol supplied to her by the three men;
- Angelica flirted with the men;
- She allowed them to kiss her and to touch her thigh;
- She went upstairs with them (they claim willingly).
- All of the above actions imply that Angelica was consenting to intercourse with the three men.
- They all heard Angelica say "no," "stop," "I don't want to do this," and "don't touch me."
- They continued anyway.
- Conclusion: their actions didn't constitute rape
Remember, pointing out a claim does not mean that you endorse it.
Mia Henderson-Bonilla
ReplyDeleteWell here's my crack at it. I may be coming out of left field, but I guess I'll be the first to put it out there...
The implicit claim that the boys are making is that there was some sort of foreplay, which could have included other types of sex, that Angelica did consent to. If she consented to foreplay, then that would justify the boys' argument that their actions did not constitute rape.
Emily Fong-
ReplyDeleteWhen Angelica said, "no. I don't want to do this. Don't touch me", then the first assumption that all readers make is that she was saying no to sex. However, the implicit claim to support the mens' side of the argument could be that they did not know what she was saying "no" to. If they thought that she was saying no to something other then sex, then she would be consenting it, therefore it is not considered as rape. The men could have interpret the meaning of "no" in numerous ways. Besides, Angelica was drunk, so who knows if what she said was accurate or even true at all.
The implicit claim for the 3 men's arguement to work is that Angelica went
ReplyDeleteupstairs with them with the intention of having sex with them. Only with
this claim will their argument work. This claim would prove that her
intention following them upstairs was to have sex but at a later point
refused them. So, their initial advance on her and escort up the stairs
was supported by a legitimate claim.
I have thought and thought… wracking my brain and not second guessing my ideas. Everything focuses of Angelica. What we haven’t determined was the coherency of the three men. Just how intoxicated were the men? I needed to know. The book does not state what their BAC was, nor would it have been questioned unless Angelica had reported the alleged rape within one hour of said action, or if our two voyeurs had taken action, even if anonymously, had called in the police.
ReplyDeleteI wondered, how drunk is drunk? So I went looking – yes, I “googled.”
I read into the story – They were drinking : Euphoric, Excitement, and Confusion all come into play here. Stupor, Coma, and Death do not play a part in this story.
Angelica was (I assume) at a BAC of .30+, BUT, we are not just talking about Angelica – ALL three men were at this confusion stage. When we read the about the changes of behavior, we find that not any one of them were in their “right” mind and all reasonableness goes out the window.
SO, my shot at the missing link – Marshall, Lee, and Stuart were just as intoxicated as Angelica. Due to this, they cannot be held responsible for their actions. (you have no idea how much this disturbs me!)
************************************************
The Stages of Intoxication
When an individual ingests alcohol, there are definite, visible changes in his or her performance and behavior. An increase in a person's blood alcohol content (BAC) can be tracked in five stages:
1. 1. Euphoria (BAC = .10)
o The person becomes more confident and daring.
o They have trouble paying attention.
o They have more color in their face.
o They lack good judgement, acting on impulse.
o They find tasks requiring fine motor control difficult.
2. 2. Excitement (BAC .20)
o The person may become sleepy.
o Their short term memory is impaired.
o Their reaction time is greatly reduced.
o Their gross motor skills are uncoordinated.
o They have trouble maintaining their balance.
o Vision becomes blurry.
o Their senses become dull (hearing, tasting, touch, etc.)
3. 3. Confusion (BAC .30)
o The person might not know where they are or what they are doing.
o Walking may be difficult.
o Emotions run high - aggressive, withdrawn, overy affectionate.
o Vision is very blurry.
o They are very sleepy.
o The sensation of pain is dulled.
4. 4. Stupor (BAC .40)
o The person can barely move.
o They do not respond to external stimuli.
o Walking or standing is impossible.
o They may vomit repeatedly.
o They may become unconscious.
5. 5. Coma (BAC .50)
o The person is unconscious.
o Pupils are unresponsive to light.
o Body temperature is lower than normal.
o Breathing is shallow.
o Pulse rate is slow.
o Death may occure.
6. 6. Death (BAC more than .50)
o Breathing is halted and the person dies.
Source: howthingswork.com
Kayla Sanders
ReplyDelete1093363
I believe, as compared to the statement above mine - that they didn't claim their use of alcohol - they were seemingly as drunk as she was, for they had been drinking also - they could simply break out the claim of something along the lines of -
"Not only was Angelica drunk, but the three boys were drunk as well - alcohol messing with their mental and physical state they couldn't control themselves" - which is a rough way of stating it, but plausible.
Everyone seems to be pointing the finger at Angelica - and how she was drunk - but seems to forget that the boys happened to be drinking as well.
I think the assumption was that since Angelica was flirting with the men and giving them attention, she wanted sex. She was also willing to go into the room with the men, so they probably assumed that's what was gonna happen.
ReplyDeleteThe story doesn't imply whether Marshall, Stuart or Lee had been drinking prior to Angelica arriving at the party or had been seen drinking with Angelica that night.
ReplyDeleteThe statement was "they" were supplying her with the alcohol, not drinking "with" her. Assuming Marshall, Stuart and Lee weren't drunk nor had they been drinking, it can be said that they were thinking as reasonable persons solely using Angelica's actions while at the part, and evidence given the noting the reputation she made for herself.
It could be belived Angelica's actions (attire and demeanor) were consent and using the "No, No" "leave me alone" statement was apart of her drunken stupor and had not meant what she was saying.
*(correction)
ReplyDeleteThe statement was "they" were supplying her with the alcohol, not drinking "with" her. Assuming Marshall, Stuart and Lee weren't drunk nor had they been drinking, it can be said that they were thinking as reasonable persons.
It could be belived Angelica's actions (attire and demeanor) were consent and using the "No, No" "leave me alone" statement was apart of her drunken stupor and had not meant what she was saying.
Implicit Claim for the Mens' Side:
ReplyDeleteAngelica's actions, from the moment she arrived to the party to the time where she implicitly agreed to go with these men up the stairs, made the actions that had occurred among the three men and Angelica to be consensual.
Mary S. -
ReplyDeleteIn order for the boy's argument to work, the implicit claim they're making that Angelica was consenting is that even though she knew how the BOZ boy's parties are, reputation as being wild, she went to the party alone and drank alcohol knowing the side effects anyway. The boys would claim that Angelica consented because she allowed them to take her into the room. Even though she said "no" she was tipsy and they assumed she didn't know what she was saying because she was probably acting in a sexual, flirty way which made the boys think she wanted to have sex as well.
There was the alcohol that lead to the flirting touching and kissing which the boys probably assumed was foreplay. In addition, she fighting them and telling them “no” to them was another form of foreplay. However, I am not sure if that is correct because an implicit claim is not written down and the act of foreplay was mentioned in the book when the boys said, her “no’s” were to “spice things up”. However, their definition of “foreplay” may be completely different from others. They may think that a form of foreplay is dominant and submit; Angelica told them “no” and fought them, they kept going with their actions, and then she stopped fighting and submitted to them. Therefore, I guess the implicit claim is their definition of “foreplay” which was not mentioned.
ReplyDeletePhuong Nguyen
ReplyDeleteIn my opinion, the implicit claims that support the three men in this case are:
As Angelica cultivated and tried to be attention-getting by her appearance and she might have enjoyed the moment with them, she just stayed there for being supplied with alcohol voluntarily. Those men might think that they just tried to bring happiness to her and did what she liked. These guys have a lot of reputation and influence in campus, many girls want to create attention to them and Angelica was not an exception, that was the reason why she came there alone, enjoyed drinking and talking with them right after she arrived there. Because she felt good, she played and flirted around with them and willingly went upstairs without hesitance; otherwise, she had left soon. If she resisted, she should have said “no” at the moment they went upstairs. Because she didn’t do that, so what she said afterward was able to be assumed as her unconscious refusal when she was drunk.
The implicit claim the three accused boys should have made to validate their argument would be the absence of any physical evidences of rape on Angelica's body like nail marks, bruises, ripped off clothes, etc.We know that it was only Angelica who reported to the Dean that she washed off the filth and thus,the physical evidences as well. People at the party as well as the accused boys claimed that Angelica was drinking and her acts were clearly invitation to intimacy. It seemed like she willingly allowed the boys to lead her into the empty store room.Everything seemed like the physical relationship happened on the consent of both the parties. Except for the fact that Angelica said no and was also overheard saying so.But it's not clarified what she said no to. So, if the boys make a claim that "if the intercourse had been a forced one, then there should have been some signs of struggle on Angelica's body as well as theirs",it would strengthen their argument that sex happened on the consent of both parties.But they never talked about it. So, I'm guessing that this is the implicit claim that is missing in their argument against Angelica's accusation.
ReplyDeleteChristian Soto-
ReplyDeleteAngelicas actions from the beginning caught the three boys attention. In the party she drank alcohol and was open to the idea of three boys having small physical contact and flirtation. Those actions gave the three boys that she was willing to have sex with them. The fact that she went up to the room with them enforced the idea of sex.
I would like to know if the three boys drank or were drinking at the party? or were they sober?
I think the implicit claim that's missing is that Angelica during her explicit no's and stops in the storage room. She did not show any physical resistence which didn't result in any physical marks Or signs of resistence which indicated that she consented cause anyone in such situation would struggle for their lives if they felt that they were being violated in such a way. So without this physical struggle, I think that constitues for the implicit claim that implies that she consented.
ReplyDeleteThis comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteThe implicit claim to support the 3 men's argument to make the men thought that Angelica was consenting is that she agreed with them going to upstairs while she was totally in circumstances of drunk. She went to the party alone, being drunk, stayed beside the men, flirted with them, those actions could make the men determined that she willingly want to have sex with them. When a girl is really drunk, even she said “ No” should be taken as a “Yes”. Also, If both parties are drunk, it’s not rape because if the girl is too drunk to give consent the guy should be given the same out. That’s why even though Angelica tried to fight the guys off as impetuous as she could, they still continued forced her to have sex with them.
ReplyDeleteRisha Chand
ReplyDeleteFrom my perspective the implicit claim is that Angelica was willingly giving in to what the guys were doing. She said yes to everything the guys were doing in the beginning so how can they take her no seriously?
Angelica drank alcohol at that party, specifically alcohol supplied to her by the THREE MEN;
(had the option to say NO)
Angelica flirted with the men;
(She had the option to tell them to TAKE A HIKE, this specifically in my opinion implies that's shes attracted to all three men)
She allowed them to kiss her and to touch her thigh;
(She had the choice to say NO, and this really, really is suggestive and from a guys point of view implying that she would like to get more phycial especially if shes enjoying it)
She went upstairs with them (they claim willingly).
(She had the choice to say NO, honestly this is a complete WTF because her going upstairs from drunken guys perspective is saying okay i wanna have sex)
All of the above actions imply that Angelica was consenting to intercourse with the three men.
They all heard Angelica say "no," "stop," "I don't want to do this," and "don't touch me."
They continued anyway so how can they take her seriously when she's saying NO. She had the opportunity to say no when they were supplying her alcohol, she could've definitely said no when they were touching her, or anytime before they made there way upstairs to a storage room. The guys even seem confused at the fact that shes claiming that they raped her because she was willingingly accepting everything they were doing.
As a girl I think Angelica is pathetic this is complete bs, she had the option to say nO in the beginning! Putting myself into the guys shoes i honestly wouldve thought that she was just playing hard to get too. Yeah she said no, but she said no after all the times she said yes, she consented going into a dark storage room with three guys, what did she think they were going to do in the storage room play hide and go seek? wtf
Risha's right - they'd have to claim that the implicit consent from earlier (assuming they're right that flirting and kissing are indeed implicit consent to intercourse, which of course hasn't been established) either:
ReplyDelete1) Locks a person into an unbreakable contract to intercourse, so any later refusal can be ignored, OR
2) So strongly implies consent that any later evidence, including explicit refusal, can be ignored.
It would be unprecedented in the world of human communication that anything *implied* can actually overrule something directly communicated, but that is the hidden claim in their argument.
There is the implict claim that because she accepted drinks, openly and publicly flirted, and then "willingly" went upstairs with the three men, that she was indeed consenting to sexual activity.
ReplyDeleteHowever, in my group on Thursday we noted a few things mentally that impacted how we looked at the situation; A) she went to a frat party, alone, as a freshman during rush week with no one as her 'wing man' or back up. B)purposely and constantly made her apperance and behavior recognizable by sexuality, rather than the extremely smart young woman she was known for by professors.
So we then thought about how she precieved and carriered herself openly and how that might have impacted her decisions and choices to go to that party, accept the doting attention of three seniors, and then have to face the after effects of her actions.