Not ftw, and not a victim anymore imo. Now he's just an asshole. He had to make it public by calling a radio station. Stupid as fuck. I'm guessing karma will bite him in the ass. No one wants someone like that working for them.

(edit) oops i had skipped the first part. Still a douchebag.

If he had called the station, I would agree, but they called him. She made it public.
If his plan worked as he planned it, she would never have known, only her bully of a son would know.
I agree, it's a douchey plan to start with and he's an SOB, but I think you misunderstood what happened. He doesn't seem like he intended her to be hurt, but he's also clearly not sorry about it.

EDIT...but her response about the bullying, "you probably deserved it", leads me to believe she probably protected and excused her bully of a son as a child, saying the same thing when presented with proof of his actions instead of reprimanding him. He's right, that behavior doesn't come out of thin air, it's learned, not that that excuses his douchbaggery.

We all get the duality of this. I had a bad feeling, but then an even worse feeling kicked in... I should do a cost-benefit analysis. I already hate myself for sinking into management-speak. But...

Guy on phone: only obvious benefit is lording this over his bully. It feels really good, especially when broadcast. Maybe some residual guilt. Got to take into account that, whatever his original intention, his reaction was from the gut.

Bully: unknown. Depends on what kind of person he is now, years after. Probably angry. Possibly feels bad about what just happened to his mother.

Mother: no benefit. Probably feels raped. Possibly was raped, depending on your definition. Possible shame over what her son did. Comment of "you probably deserved it" could be genuine, or could be severe defensiveness.

Radio station:
OK, I can't be objective here. It's possibly mostly live, they maybe feel an obligation to entertain, they have little control, but fuck those guys. I just hope they apologised afterwards.

Personal analysis: doing the deed isn't cool, given the innocent victim. Laughing about it on the air is understandable, but fucked up. Broadcasting it, laughing, and celebrating the outcome - whoever you are - is disgusting.

I pretty much agree, except 1)he also got the benefit of sleeping with her and 2) his intent wasn't to victimize her.
She made it public, not him, and she was more than willing and clearly had a good time.

I agree she probably feels quite used, but raped?! that's insanity. This whole thing happened because she wanted more. Rape isn't something that retroactively happens weeks or months after the sex when you can't get more, and those who think it does are detracting from real rape victims and minimizing the crime of rape itself.

Say what you will about the people involved but that's a revenge scheme that went more than just well. That's truly noteworthy.

I know what you mean, but I think there is a blurred line when it comes to rape. Does sex coerced under false pretenses count?

If you claim to be in love with someone but aren't, is it rape? Or if you claim to be a millionaire but aren't? If you claim to be of their religion? If you wear a mask and they think you're someone else? If they're drunk or high and they think you're their partner? Or so far gone they don't know or care? How about if you got them drunk/high for that specific reason?

In all these and many more scenarios between, they can enjoy the act, but there's a valid argument for rape. Laws and individual morals vary, but they're all on a spectrum.

If I murder you to hurt your brother, my intent isn't to victimise you, but it still has that effect.

Finally, yes, she brought the conversation public, but under very different (and I'd argue innocent or even noble) circumstances. Revealing the reality - and reveling in the revelation - is in my view rong [sic].

if presenting yourself inaccurately is rape, everyone is (arguably) a rapist. it's a shitty definition.

Sex coerced and sex under false pretenses are two different things im pretty sure. False pretenses being some kind of untrue representation/lie. You slept with me and i had lied about having a girlfriend or i was the drummer in the band. Defiantly not rape. Coerced on the other hand, "persuade (an unwilling person) to do something by using force or threats", sounds exactly like rape.

I 100% agree, but at some point it moves from acceptable to immoral, and that point varies. That's why I gave examples that I think many/most people would not consider rape (pretending you're rich), and what I suspect is its counterpart (pretending you're their partner).

Note that I'm not arguing whether or not this was rape, I'm just making the point that there's a valid argument to be made. I know that's cravenly copping out, but I'm not confident enough to make either case 100%.

I'm a follower of the George Carlin philosophy that says you can only take offense, you can't give it. i.e. offence is in the eye of the beholder, and so any judgement needs to take into account things like intention, and should err on the side of free speech. Any psychological attack - from being cut off when driving to being told you have cancer - will damage you only to the level that you let it (which is largely out of your own control), but that doesn't stop the source of the attack from being in the wrong.

This is why I looked at this case in cost-benefit terms. We can't know for sure how this affected those involved, but it's reasonable to suspect that the woman was psychologically scarred through little or no fault of her own, and sexual violation is one of the most cruel and personal. This is amplified by the public nature of it. Yes, maybe - hopefully - she chalked it down to a bad decision, but I think it would be completely understandable if she was significantly damaged by what was unarguably a malicious action against her (even if the malice wasn't directed towards her).

In my eyes, that's fraud at best, and since sex can't be sold, she would have no recoverable loss.
That goes for your examples until impairment comes in. I disagree, but I think the law says if you sleep with someone who's drunk or high, that's rape, even if they were ok with it at the time.

Mentioning she enjoyed it wasn't meant as a defense to rape, but an indication that he was not an asshole to her on the date.

No, if you intentionally murder me, your intent is to victimize me, your goal might not be.

Yes, schadenfreude is not becoming, but we all engage in it. I can't blame him for being gleeful his plan had so overachieved his goal, but the djs, yeah.

All that said, I'm pretty sure this is all scripted...it was just too perfect.

There's a legal term, detrimental reliance, that means if you harm yourself by acting on someone's fraud, they're liable....but the harm must be quantifiable and recoverable, which sex isn't....but don't rely on that, I'm not a lawyer! ;-)

retroactive revocation of consent is not a thing. If you think it is, you've probably been brainwashed by a feminist and need to start thinking for yourself. Unless you specifically have an agreement that you are only sleeping with someone because they have $x money in their bank account or some other explicit fact, you've just got regret.

The conversation here has been interesting, as usual, but is no one going to mention that most radio programming is scripted? Any of those bits where they call someone and offer to send flowers to a person of their choosing - all scripted / actors, or at least that's my understanding. If that's the case, this call easily could just be a bit.

Moving this video to newtboy's personal queue. It failed to receive enough votes to get sifted up to the front page within 2 days.