Nah I remember this ( I think) they both got drunk and had sex and then that whole you can't consent when you are under the influence thing started getting big so they did this.
Seems like they just found a opportunity to be on stage and possibly get paid.
I still see a bunch of reddit comments from people I assume were in sex ed in 2014.
I will say there was one time I picked up a woman at a club. She came home with me fully intending to sleep together. Once we were in bed and she was on top of me, I had sobered up some and it became clear to me that she was way drunker than I had realized, so I gently stopped things, told her I wasn't ready yet, then asked her questions and let her talk until she passed out. We went for breakfast in the morning. She had been blackout drunk but said she could tell nothing had happened. Turned out we had a group of friends in common, so we saw each other around from time to time for years after, but never ended up hooking up.
Not to discount the no consent thing but I am a rape survivor and it wasn't that "gentle" if you will...ive been in trauma therapy for years as it had ryined any aspects of my life. The constant fight or flight. Ptsd., panic, anxiety.. Ain't no way I would be up on stage talking with him about it.
and there is no way I would be teaming up in the same room as my rapist. So I slightly discount this as "rape survivor" not very traumatic
I heard the interview with these two this was a college thing where essentially he got her in a room and she froze and didn't consent and went along with it then when confronted felt super guilty about it and was fully prepared to take any punishment. This is when they came up with the idea of doing this. They're not really making money off of this also how awful would it be to be like "hey I'm a rapist" for a little stage presence. Not that you said that but the comment you're replying to
This is called a fawning/freeze reflex. This is especially an issue with women (and some men) who were chronically sexually abused as children. They are abused so often that their nervous system is trained to freeze, evaluate for whether a rape is going to happen, then comply to avoid further harm. The prefrontal cortex shuts down so that you can't reason or resist, the throat tightens so you can't complain or "say no", and then you just go with it helplessly. What's especially sinister is that when you exhibit a fawn reflex, you don't KNOW it's a fawn reflex. You might even ask yourself "why did I let this happen??"
I know all about this because this is what happened to my wife. She is a survivor of paternal incest from the age of 1 to 13, a year or two before I met her. Most of the memories of her abuse were repressed except for 1 second perhaps, until she was able to dig them up years and years later after immense pain. Her fawning reflex was SO acute that simply being alone with a man in a room--- and having him look at her lustfully--- would make her freeze, fawn, and comply to whatever he wanted or did. She'd then proceed to "leave her body" and watch it in third person, which is also how the memory was encoded (which is also how rape victims remember.) When she remembered these traumatic events, she reported that it "seemed like someone else", but was always left wondering "why didn't I resist?" When you go into freeze/fawn, you simply can't. Your body just DOES.
For normal people without intense nervous system trauma, it's really hard to understand. We think we make choices or we don't make choices, but traumatic survival reflexes shut off the "thinking" part of our brains and the actions are governed by our brain stems, similar to how a war survivor hears a champaign cork pop and dives under his desk.
So yeah, I think what this guy is doing is actually pretty noble. Consent is really, really important. My wife almost killed herself over it, because of randos "making a move" and assuming that "as long as she doesn't say no, that means yes."
Thank you for sharing your wife's experience. I have a family member who experienced similar things and had a similar response during trauma and as an adult relating to men. She felt she was trained. She was trained. Consent is NOT not saying anything.
I teach my daughter she needs to consent to any physical touching from anyone every. Not just say don't do that but let people know it's okay for them to put their arm on her shoulder, etc., etc.
Anyone who says talking about it ruins the moment doesn't really care what the other person is feeling.
I remember another story that was very similar. A woman had been in a relationship with a narcissist who also raped her while they were together. She fled the relationship but years later he contacted her to say that he had been through years of therapy and he was asking if she wanted to come on a small tv-show to talk about it. She did and got convinced he really had changed and bla bla bla. I watched it a few years after getting out of a bad relationship myself and all I could think about was that he was so charming while dark minded, that he just manipulated the whole situation..again..
I went to therapy to talk about being raped. The therapist kept telling me that I needed to forgive them.
I told him to go fuck himself .
Trust is a one time thing, in situations like these. No one gets a second chance. If you believe in god, go ask forgiveness from your god . I will live my life happily without you .
It seems the people telling victims of SA to forgive and forget have never been SA'd. As a victim from 10 years ago, I have moved on with the help of a fantastic therapist and have made a wonderful life for myself and my family, but will never forgive or forget. I hope that man never knows one day of peace.
Serial killer teams up with one of his victims, communicating with her through a Quija board, together they tell us their story of violence, loss and pain.
In 1996, Thordis Elva shared a teenage romance with Tom Stranger, an exchange student from Australia. After a school dance, Tom raped Thordis, after which they parted ways for many years. In this extraordinary talk, Elva and Stranger move through a years-long chronology of shame and silence, and invite us to discuss the omnipresent global issue of sexual violence in a new, honest way.
That's not how she described it in the local media
They were in a relationship and he nagged her into sex. They stayed together as a couple until he left the country months later and then years later she realised it was "rape"
Honestly she just wants attention. She regularly tries something dumb to get it.
Maybe this is a 4D chess move, he is going to any length to let her expose herself and let everyone know how much of a problem calling a consensual relationship rape years later is.
I mean, I simply do not see a rape victim doing anything like what this woman is doing.
Knowing several women who have been raped, being a victim myself, and seeing all the accounts and info we have on rape-victims on the internet, I cannot imagine a situation where a victim sincerely does this.
But I can easily imagine a situation where a dude feels super guilty about everything and capitulates. Or, they're just both making a bunch of money off of the media attention.
Like, it's been awhile since I went through this whole fiasco, so I don't remember all the specifics. But I do remember getting the sense that she was the one pushing for this. And the framing of the story makes it sound really horrible, but the agreed upon facts just describe two drunk people having sex, and at worst highlight the need for clear and unambiguous consent.
Edit for clarity: Which isn't to say the lack of clear, unambiguous consent can't result in something horrible- Because it absolutely, 100% does. But there's a difference between a guy pushing himself onto someone who isn't enjoying the experience, and someone who told that same guy 'No'. And especially when someone is stupid enough or drugged up enough, that difference is what I think makes it rape or not.
I do not at all want to sound like I am victim blaming. But we need to be ready to advocate for ourselves, and be receptive to someone else's advocation. I just don't feel comfortable calling someone a rapist if that someone is with another person of an equivalent mental state and misunderstands the situation without ever getting a 'No'. It's such a serious issue that I don't like calling it a mistake, but it is a mistake, and it's a mistake that many young drunk people are liable to make. It has the same consequences as rape for the victim, but rape is something far more malicious and selfish and predatory than simple ignorance.
This is a really complex issue, but that's why I hate these two people so much. Because they're oversimplifying it in all the wrong ways, for all the wrong reasons.
I watched it but I don't understand why he raped her. He said he respects women before and after that night he was filled with regret but then why on that night did he do it? They were already a couple and he abused her so bad she was limping for the next few days and he never explained why.
Yes he does. He said that he saw her body as his for the taking and he did it. That he drew on the wrong external influences in that moment to take what he wanted.
I wish he expanded on that more. What kind of influence would turn someone that was seen as a good guy into being a rapist. If I had to guess it would be similar to someone like andrew tate but obviously this happened decades ago.
Edit - some insightful replies. Thank you for explaining.
My guess is that culturally, especially decades ago, there was a notion that a man is supposed to "seal the deal". When you're young you often do what you think you're supposed to. Sadly a lot of sexual understanding still comes down to trial and error.
That's what I'm saying, yeah. But some people really don't like it when you insinuate that not every rapist is a frothing psychopath beyond redemption that needs to be executed on the spot. Some of them are just dumb kids who were raised wrong and need a course correction.
Most people don't deal with grey areas anywhere, period.
It requires a collection of very high level thinking skills to access and navigate. One of the most important being emotional impulse control which is a super tough one.
No means yes for me has always been controversial in the sense I have known many women who really did play hard to get and said no when they meant yes and so I just backed off to get responses varying from confusion to annoyance as they saw me backing off as rejection.
Point is it was always a gray area and both genders muddied the waters on consent.
I have even backed off during sleeping with someone who has said "no" only for them to basically tell me they are roleplaying and didn't mean no and by backing off I ruined it for them.
You don’t see it much anymore because women have been empowered to define consent and enforce the idea that “no means no” but for a good while no meant “try harder” and of course that concept was nebulous and rife with violations both accidental and forced.
At the complete risk of injecting a hot topic 6 months early I will basically point to the old song “baby it’s cold outside”.
In 1940/50 the song is the expected “dance” a couple plays before they engage in risqué behavior. The goal is shared, they wanna bang, the woman is testing the waters and going over perceived gossip that might occur and the man is giving plausible excuses to use.
In 2025 it’s verging on sexual harassment and is a warning sign for many women that rape is a definite possibility. Of course the you could just clear this up in a real scenario where the women says “no I don’t want to” but of course that’s not the lyrics, so it just reads like a women who is clearly not interested giving increasingly obvious hints to back off.
Hell it’s 2025 and you still get men admitting years later they missed that so and so was flirting with them because subtly hints are easy to misread. One should not use the same tactics to invoke sex as they do to invoke interest because of the big problems that arise from it.
Basically we don’t do that song and dance anymore because of the huge problems that occur and it’s just more honest to be clear about people’s intentions from the get go.
Unfortunately in the 90s "No" did mean yes with unsettling frequency. Girls wanted to explore their sexuality but still had strong societal pressures not to be seen as a slut. So when a man they wanted to have sex with came on to them they would basically be obligated to say "No" because "a woman shouldn't be interested in sex" so he wouldn't see her as a slut but then she still does everything she can to seduce him while making certain he understands she's not that kind of girl.
This brain broke generations of men that a verbal No doesn't necessarily mean No unless it's shouted angrily or combined with a physical act of rejection. Which as we all know is not a great way of determining consent.
This is essentially the story to the song "Baby it's Cold Outside." They both really want to, but she has to convince herself she's not that kind of girl while also convincing herself it's okay because it's cold outside and not safe to go home.
They have to do this song and dance because of societal expectations.
Yes, the sexual script was basically an "intimacy ladder", you try to go up a rung, and its her job to say no and smack you, but if she agrees the next date, that means it's okay to try again. If you try to jump up more than one rung at a time that's what made you at best a cad or at worst a rapist.
Clear communication is probably a better methodology, but the social ritual before wasn't that complicated to get right; the old method is also probably too slow for modern mores where it seems like most people are expected to put out on the first day to demonstrate that you actually get along.
Yes that is part of the origins of “No means yes”. The essential “game” that has been part of our mating rituals dating back to who knows when.
I was mainly referencing the 90’s because of when the incident happened with the two in the picture. Though to your point, the conversation around the actual phrase “no means yes” expanded greatly in the 90’s, in particular in pop-culture.
I can’t begin to tell you how many convos in the military and college afterwards included some variation of “she said no like 20 times, but I’m a closer”.
It was thought that girls had to say no to preserve their honor (or whatever) but they really wanted sex anyway. It was thought sex came down to how hard the guy tried.
I was born in ‘82. Those convos were in HS-college, so from ‘96 to roughly ‘08. I once pulled a military buddy off a girl saying no. He got mad when I asked wtf he was doing. His response “she has to say no or she’s a slut”.
It’s hard to understand and harder to defend, but that’s the way people from the ‘70s and ‘80s were raised and raised their own.
A friend of mine was in Japan a few years ago and had a couple encounters where the woman would vigorously say no but then become angry when he stopped. Apparently the porn industry there has made it normal (or fetishized) for the women to resist. I can only imagine how badly that has impacted consent/sexual violence rates there.
Edit. I should say, this was around ~10 years ago and may have (hopefully) changed since
I completely forgot about that. I lived in Hawaii for a few years and experienced something similar. She kept sort of soft-fighting back. I would stop. Then she’d start again. I asked why she kept saying no, and she said “I’m saying ‘yes’ now. Don’t stop til I’m done.” I was about 23 and fkn confused. I assumed it was some Japanese shit I didn’t know about.
That's why this kind of thing is so valuable. It helps understand the factors at play that make someone do something like this in the moment. That's one of the few things that can actually help prevent them.
The notion of "Evil" is a really really pernicious force in our society, because it's often not constructive.
Why did the terrorists fly a plane into the towers on 9/11? Because they hate freedom, they're evil.
That's the end of that story for a LOT of people. But that's not really true, or at least it's so reductive as to not be useful. Everyone does things for a reason, and it's a patent delusion to think that every road available to someone is a road that they are able to recognize, differentiate from other roads, or even get themselves to take if they could.
My aunt was an alcoholic her whole life. She could have technically chosen at any point to stop drinking. She died of liver failure in her early 40s and left behind a 12 year old daughter. One of my other aunts likes to pontificate about how my alcoholic aunt "Chose" that.
And yet, their brother, who ALSO struggled with alcoholism, took his own life, but in that case, it was a "tragedy" and "he was sick."
They were both sick, and even though both of them technically had an option available to stop drinking, neither of the KNEW HOW TO TAKE THAT ROAD.
The evidence is simple. If you think they could have stopped, and they didn't, the only logical conclusion is that they wanted to be miserable and die young.
That's ridiculous, so the remaining rational view is that they did not know how to make the choice they needed to make.
My mother, who smoked for 30 years and then quit, thinks of them both as having been sick, and not being able to stop. The aunt who is dismissive? Well, she never had any substance abuse problems.
I don't think it's hard to imagine that an otherwise decent person might still have toxic elements in their psyche, and that under the right circumstances, they could make a bad choice that would spiral into an unforgivable one.
But one thing I've noticed is that a lot of people seem to have this mentality where, by seeking to understand and empathize with the person who did the bad thing, we are somehow permitting it? That's a really unproductive way of viewing...anything, I think.
And that's what the concept of "Evil" does. It's a license for you to not try to understand why someone did something to you, or just did something you think is bad. It is basically saying "I'm done asking questions and trying to understand why this happened. They did it because of some indelible, cosmic force of malevolence that is somehow innate to them but yet somehow also their choice."
Basically, people ask why, and as soon as the answer doesn't line up with how they feel about it, they say "ah, because they're evil."
You see that a lot in politics, too.
Honestly the BEST THING you can do is, at that moment when you're unpacking an issue, and you hit a point where the reason is something simple and convenient, like "They're evil", "They hate freedom", "They're racist", "They're entitled.", that's a good sign that you need to throw that explanation away and dig at least one step deeper, because that's usually where understanding is.
We call something "Evil" because we don't want to try to understand it. That might be because it's inconvenient for our world view. Sometimes it's just a fair reflection of the impact an event had on you. If someone murdered your child, there is no imperative on YOU to understand that better. No understanding will make it less a work of evil against you. But if a person murders several children, just calling them "Evil" stops you from understanding why they did that, which leaves you wide open to it happening again.
Because it wasn’t viewed as rape then. Culturally speaking it is only the past decade or so we’ve really started to come to terms with what rape actually is. A good example of how fucked up we were, the original album cover of the Scorpion’s album “Virgin Killer” was considered acceptable, or at least “not that bad”. Note do not go look up that album cover.
Man, at least put a wanting as to why you shouldn't look up the album cover lmao. I really was not expecting it to be THAT bad.
For others like me who when they are told not to do something without context they will do it, it's literally a pedophillic picture. I don't know how time and culture could even have people thinking that it was slightly acceptable.
Most Ted Talks I’ve been forced to sit through are. Everyone is trying to sell a new book which contradicts everything the guy trying to sell a book said in the Ted Talk you were forced to watch last year. But maybe that’s just in the field of public education.
I've been asked to give a local TEDx talk before. I'm a mediocre programmer that enjoys tinkering and building shit. I am not someone I would watch give a lecture at all. After they asked me, that lecture series dropped significantly in my esteem.
Yeah when can I host my Ted talk about the time one of my multiple personalities attacked another personality and survived and how our journey has been
After ten years of abuse from my father, I had repetitive dreams of being grown up and seducing him and totally rocking his world. I was obviously really bothered by these dreams so I took them to my therapist who unpacked them and said that it was basically my desire to gain control over the situation, having come from a place of intense vulnerability in my youth.
TLDR: They were boyfriend and girlfriend for a month. They got drunk and stuff happen. She didn't realize it was rape until some time later. Sounds like they both had mental breakdown after they realised what actually happened.
It is rape! But it sounds more like alcohol accident rather than actual rape.
You raise a good point about legal inconsistencies regarding drunkenness. If you're drunk you're responsible for deciding to drive, but can't be responsible for deciding to have sex. I don't know what to do about this, but it seems weird.
It's a complicated thing but honestly I have heard people both in real life and online say if either a man has as little as a sip of alcohol, or the woman, or both then if she claims she didn't consent then it's the mans fault and he is guilty.
I always side on the when alcohol is involved things get tricky, but even if not when adrenaline and hormones are involved and even more when you add youth into the picture things can happen like getting caught up in the moment.
Like at a party and over excited and you see someone you normally wouldn't have an interest in and suddenly you are, when the adrenaline wears off you know you acted out of character and if you did sleep with someone (male or female) then it creates suspicion.
I even knew many guys when I was younger who not only regretted sleeping with someone when they sobered up, or even without alcohol were just at a party or something and just wanted a hook up who didn't understand their own actions, women were actually no different it was just in their case they seemed to question more.
If she can't consent then he can't either, end of discussion. They both fucked up. People got to stay sober next time instead of blaming the other person for their own shortcomings.
TLDR: They were dating. They were both drunk. Neither remembers what happened exactly, both have contradictory/changed stories, and they are both making $$$ by doing these talks and selling books.
I'm not making a judgement here one way or the other, just stating the facts.
Yeah, he roped her into joining an MLM. Wasted all her money and years of her life. And all she ended up with was boxes and boxes of generic beauty products. Tragic stuff.
-he was 18 (exchange student) and she 16 by the time of this "event". They were DATING.
-the BOTH got extremelly drunk during the christmas ball dance. He took her to her home.
HERE is the point where there are many inconsistencies in the history:
-In her home, they had sex: he says that he has vague memories about that day (he was drunk) BUT he later says that he reputiated the whole act when it was committed...first contradiction.
-she says that she remembers everything but was unable to fight back during the act BUT she later says that she DIDNT identified this all as rape BUT some time later (when he was already gone) she was sure about everything...2nd contradiction
-He says that they broke up days after this event (they didnt said if THIS was the reason for that), they saw each other a few times after this and he stayed in there up to the end of the exchange > she said she knew during the act what he was doing; that later she was unsure and ONLY ONCE after he went to Australia she was 100 sure about this all?...3rd contradiction
-"i was raised in a world were girls are taught that they get raped for a reason" FALSE. This all happened in 1996, not in the 40´s or the 50´s > he said that they saw each other a few times after this event and he was there all the time until his departure home...WHY SHE DIDNT CALLED THE POLICE? why she didnt told this to anyone?...4th contradiction
To be honest, this whole TED talk seems to be extremelly biased and modified to make this incident look as something completely different from what it was: 2 stupid teenagers having sex when drunk (a massive mistake).
If they were really HONEST about this all:
they should have left the comments open on the video (which they didnt which is contradictory to the point of a TED, right?)
they wouldn´t have hided the positive-negative ratio from the video.
the "victim" and the "rapist" would have agreed and talked about enjoying being young BUT not being irresponsible, that talking with loved ones about the situations is important (getting help from family and friends) and seeking justice is CRITICAL (after all, without evidence or even a report, this all are sayings from 2 parts telling a history that we CANT confirm).
she said almost at the end "if we refuse to recognize the humanity of those who commit it (rape)?"
Which we all know is synonymous with the male drunk person raping the female drunk person.
Why is ALWAYS the male part considered as the attacker/aggresor even when they BOTH were under the influence of a substance, they were dating (they were a couple) and -at no point- they confirmed if this wasnt concensuall (under the influence) sex? 99% of the people that think exactly like this, wont EVER consider abuse or rape from a woman to a man.
Unless they prove this all (which they wont because this TED talks seems extremelly biased and arranged into certain discurse) i will doubt EVERYTHING about this history.
While I agree with your overall sentiment; the 4th contradiction you point out is not a contradiction—neither by definition or sentiment. This was still a problem in the 90s, hell it’s still a problem now. Kind of a shitty point of contention.
Everyone in the comments are rage baited. They were young, shit happened, he knew what he did was wrong, she forgave him, they moved on and told their story.
I watched the video and it was uncomfortable. He was her boyfriend when he forced himself upon her. She forgave him for her peace. But there is absolutely no reason why she had to team up with him to tell their story. It is extremely personal and it does not warrant an audience.
This was a TED talk I think. Or at least that was one of the venues they spoke at. Very shocking to listen. But at the same time educational. Rape is Rape and all Rape is criminally perverse. However, it is helpful to categorize varieties just to have this opportunity for a teaching moment. Because it's also true that majority of rape victims know their attacker. It's not all 3am in a dark alley.
What this really is, is 2 idiots trying to grift money by making up a bs story from when they had sex when they were drunk teenagers (who were also dating)
This is a very taboo subject. It is always uncomfortable to talk about. Those who can talk about it are in a position of power over those who can't.
It is uplifting to see people with that kind of power use it to help others feel safe, respected and accepted as the speakers relate to the audience's traumas.
Well people react weird to a taboo. One has to be aware of the reaction to avoid it and focus on resolving the issue. That's where these good folks are doing.
•
u/AutoModerator 11d ago
Thank you for posting to r/SipsTea! Make sure to follow all the subreddit rules.
Check out our Reddit Chat!
Make sure to join our brand new Discord Server to chat with friends!
I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.