Support the Guide on Patron!

Be sure to share your comments in the Class Participation section below -- that's the best part! Also, you can use the arrows on your keyboard to flip through pages quickly.

Use this link to buy the books, and a portion of the proceeds goes to St. Jude Children's Research Hospital

Join the conversation! There are now 16 comments on this chapter's page 3. Is That Him?. What are your thoughts?
  1. By request, I made a flowchart generally summarizing what is and isn’t rape. Which was hard to do, because the law is so variable from state to state. And it certainly shouldn’t be taken as a statement of what the law is in your particular state.

    It somehow doesn’t really fit with Sticky McStickfigure’s section (the comic’s actual chapter on rape), so I guess I’ll just park it here:


    • So what is the justification between answering “Yes” to “Did the other person know they were having sex with you against your will?” and saying “Doesn’t matter” to “Was the other person too drunk to know what they were doing?” Reading these two statements as a lay person leads me to believe that they contradict each other. Is there something I’m missing?

      • The only way I can think of that would reconcile that would it being an objective test rather than a subjective test. That is to say, it does not matter whether or not they knew that you did not want to have sex. Rather, what matters is whether any reasonable person would conclude that you did not want to have sex.

      • He discussed this in the section on Mens Rea in the criminal law comic. If you get drunk, the law applies your intention in getting drunk towards actions you perform while drunk. In other words, even if I didn’t know what I was doing while drunkenly raping someone, when I was drinking beforehand I’m presumed to have known that I might do something wrong while I was drunk, and yet chose to drink anyway.

    • Wait… so if you’re male, someone getting you drunk and giving you a handjob when you can’t resist isn’t rape? I mean, there’s no penetration, technically…

      Is this another one of those ‘the law hasn’t caught up to changing morality’ issues?

      • That might simply be a different charge (sexual assault?)

        On the other hand, I have heard it claimed that, in a few places, rape is defined in a way that requires the victim to have been penetrated. Which implies a female forcibly having vaginal intercourse with a male isn’t rape (since the male wasn’t penetrated). Some laws are just badly drafted.

  2. silenthuntervanguard says

    My guess is it wasn’t him, because his eyes aren’t yellow.

  3. nick012000 says

    Would you mind if I copied that onto Imgur and posted it onto reddit?

Class Participation

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Support the Guide on Patron!