"Rape...is not caused by rapists" WTF!?!

[Unacceptable]

If you aren't aware of the rapist Brock Turner and the campaigners who think he's getting a hard time, have a read of this guardian link.

AIBU to think that the statement from Leslie Rassmussen decrying political correctness that harms poor boys like Brock is the dumbest piece of shit I've ever read?

Even in their drunkest, most ridiculous states my Husband, Brothers and adult sons would not rape a woman because, and I'm sure Leslie wouldn't want to entertain this notion, they wouldn't rape somebody because they aren't rapists!!!!

Brock clearly is.
Having sex without consent is rape.
Forcing yourself upon an unconscious person is rape.

You don't have to be a stranger in a dark alley to do that, just your normal, average, everyday twat.

I know it is hard to accept the wrongdoings of a loved one.
I know we'd all fight to protect those we care about but you can still fucking accept the mistakes that people make...even if you can't get your head around it, don't bury your head in the sand and pretend it's less of an abuse because 'he's a nice guy'.
When will people wake the fuck up?

Link: gu.com/p/4kk46/stw

KindDogsTail I'd be interested to read that if you have a link.

I have personally been part of sexual activity when I didn't really want to and I wish I hadn't. But it wasn't assault. I wasn't pressured. I participated enough for there to be a reasonable assumption I was willing and I wasn't at all drunk. The only way I could possibly call it assault is if I believed men should always stop and ask for verbal consent and that failure to do so is assault.

I take your point. And it's why I'm going to be teaching my DC (who are all boys) to go for enthusiastic consent. The otherwise laudable "No Means No" campaign allowed a generation or more to believe that a lack of vehement "No" implies consent, and that's not right.

I mean, who wants to fuck someone who's any less than enthusiastic?

Rapists, for a start.

I've just read the statement from one of Brock Turner's childhood friends. I can kind of see where she's coming from, if she believes that this was just a drunken fumble where they were both as pissed as each other. And then suddenly her poor friend is accused of rape.

As far as I am aware (and someone please correct me if I'm wrong) the letters of support were handed in pre-sentencing, but after Turner was convicted.

So we have the scenario that all these people had access to the details of the case - the dumpster, the dirt, the abrasions, the Swedish witnesses, the confirmation of unconsciousness AND the victim statement but chose to ignore them.

And what's more, I understand that an appeal is being prepared. Yes, an appeal after Turner was convicted UNANIMOUSLY and against the pathetic sentence he's been given and in the face of that victim statement and worldwide condemnation of his actions. I do hope sincerely that if leave to appeal is given, the fact that he's a liar under oath is very much noted and used by any future prosecution.

I will be pushing the importance of verbal consent with my DS.

I think a lot of men, especially but not only young men, don't care what degree of 'willing' the sex is provided that the 'permission' is there in some shape or form. They've scored, that's enough.

Sometimes, satire is the strongest weapon:

newsthump.com/2016/06/09/rapists-worldwide-desperately-searching-for-their-500m-swimming-certificates/

Sex offenders the world over are keen to prove how good they are at swimming.

The sudden rummage for 100m front crawl certificates comes after Stamford student, Brock Turner, was given a mere six-month jail sentence for raping a woman due to the special fucking snowflake being privileged to shit and a bit good at swimming.

“I can’t do much about the privilege” admitted convicted rapist, Simon Williams.

“But I’m sure I remember my mum saying I was pretty good at the breaststroke in my early teens; which is ironic bearing in mind the nature of my current custodial sentence.

(contd)

Several people have asked about whether the prosecutor can appeal the sentence. Prosecutors in the US can appeal sentences, depending on the facts of the case and the jurisdiction, but they must have grounds based on the law. Here is an article explaining why those grounds do not exist in this case.

www.mercurynews.com/crime-courts/ci_29993496/q-stanford-sex-case-sentence-will-da-appeal

As impacted as I was by the victim impact statement, I'm not sure how I would feel about a conviction without the testimony of the Swedes. It does change things that she cannot remember what happened. Without their testimony, I'm not sure that it would be fair if women were able to assume they had been raped on the basis that they couldn't remember agreeing. I do say this regretfully. Women do sometimes choose to have sex in public areas and while they are drunk. If the man was similarly inebriated and couldn't remember events, could he claim to have been assaulted by her? It is physically possible.

STOP TALKING ABOUT FUCKING TEA

From what I've read, this guy is guilty and should be strung up by his balls before a loooooong prison term.

Ignoring the specifics of this case, I feel this is an interesting question. Horatio's made some good points (necessarily) devoid of emotional attachment and speaking more hypothetically whereas many posters are stiicking specifically to this case of proven rape.

" But only if he actually realises what's going on. Is it rape/assault if he doesn't realise for the first 5 seconds? For 20 seconds? Does he need to finger her for a minute...? 2? at what point should a drunk guy in the dark realise that she's unconscious"

I've never been assaulted (sexually or otherwise) but equally, I don't think I've ever given verbal consent. I think that on the whole, rape is black and white but there can be gray areas.

To give a personal example, DH and I got home very, very drunk. We both got naked. I started to give him a BJ. He passed out* but I continued for, well, honestly, I don't really know but I stopped because he said something unconnected in his sleep and rolled over. I've also had sex where I ended up with gravel rash on my bum. I'm not for a second comparing my story to the one being discussed here but there can be a gray area and I belive it's important to recognise that.

Verbal consent, to use the common phrase, isn't worth the paper it's written on. "She said yes" vs "no I didn't" with absolutely no other evidence either way and the 'rapist' should be found innocent.

I think the problem with rape**, as a crime, is that most people enjoy sex and therefore the argument is whether both parties wanted it to happen or not. The fact sex did occur is almost by-the-by whereas with something like a stabbing, there can't be many cases where the perpetrator has argued the victim 'wanted it'.

*was awoken by an elbow to the ribs

**I hope it's clear what I mean here

I have never been so drunk that I have assaulted anyone and not remembered it (never assaulted anyone drunk or sober).

Rape is rape is rape!

You cannot give consent if you are drunk or have been given a rape drug.
Not being able to remember the assault should not let the rapist walk away.

I think the problem with rape, as a crime, is that most people enjoy sex and therefore the argument is whether both parties wanted it to happen or not. The fact sex did occur is almost by-the-by whereas with something like a stabbing, there can't be many cases where the perpetrator has argued the victim 'wanted it'.

Yes, I agree. Only a very few theft cases hinge on whether it was actually an agreed loan/gift.

I do find your other remarks troubling, I'm afraid.

I'm not very verbal during sex and would find it extremely sexually dampening to have to say actual words in order to continue. But DH is in no doubt whether I'm happy to continue or not. That's partly because of my non-verbal responses and partly body language.

If I approached a new sexual partner tomorrow leaving aside the morality of an affair then s/he would have none of those years of experience of my responses, so would have to work harder to understand how I was feeling - even if that killed the mood a bit. It's been a long time since I had a new sexual partner but I remember the awkward "shall I try ..." "oh, no, I'm not that flexible" "all right, how about ..." thing.

As impacted as I was by the victim impact statement, I'm not sure how I would feel about a conviction without the testimony of the Swedes. It does change things that she cannot remember what happened. Without their testimony, I'm not sure that it would be fair if women were able to assume they had been raped on the basis that they couldn't remember agreeing

Well of course! Because what woman wouldn't give consent to being dragged (yes, dragged) behind a dumpster for a fumble and dirt and pine needles being shoved up her vagina along with a dry finger? It all sounds such a turn-on doesn't it?

Did you even read the details of this case??

STOP TALKING ABOUT FUCKING TEA

FUCK RIGHT OFF. I'LL TALK ABOUT WHAT I WANT.

And may I also point out, lest it be utterly obscure, MrsHathaway, that without the testimony of the Swedes, it's less than likely that Turner would have been caught and tried at all. So she'd have been left without knowing which charming specimen of humanity saw fit to insert flora and dirt inside her in such a romantic location.

mrshatahway

I do find your other remarks troubling, I'm afraid.

Which ones?

If the man was similarly inebriated and couldn't remember events, could he claim to have been assaulted by her? It is physically possible.

If:
He woke up stripped naked behind a dumpster/on a trolley in hospital.
With dirt and pine needles up his arsehole.
With abrasions up his arsehole.
Abrasions on his body.
Pine needles embedded in his hair.

Then, I'm sure it would be possible to conclude that. But as that happened to her - not him, then it is not possible to conclude that..

No need to be aggressive Bob.

I did read the details but missed the part where she was dragged-are you getting that from the pine needles in her hair? I would like a reconstruction for that-my hair would be full of pine needles if I lay down in them because of its texture. But possibly, yes .

'Dry' 'dirty ' finger - plenty of impromptu consensual fingering goes on without washed hands and lube. As for pine needles in the body, again it would depend on how many. One or two would be par for the course. More would be strange but that's just my opinion and would be for a jury to decide.

I read the details and yes, I would tend towards thinking she was assaulted regardless of the Swedes but I'm uncomfortable with trying a case based on how 'unlikely' a woman would be to have sexual relations outside, without lube, with someone she'd just met, on the ground. I went to college and seemed to spend a lot of time listening to stories of danger, sexual encounters and choices which were inexplicable in the cold light of day. That's not to say I think we should assume women choose to do these things but equally we can't assume they never do.

The dumpster is neither here nor there-if I wanted to have sex in a public area i would go behind the dumpster, equally if I was a rapist I'd go behind the dumpster. It doesn't prove much.

I'm primarily stunned, like everyone else, by the enormity of what the victim went through, the unpleasantness of the tactics used to dodge accountability and the offensively short sentence. So much clearly needs to change and it's within the justice system and within the masculine culture. However I also think, as a side issue, that women, while morally free to do what they want to and responsible for nobody's actions but their own, need to consider (when drinking this much) the possibility that there is someone like Brock in the room.

Abrasions in the vagina/anus are certainly indicative of sexual assault - and accepted as such by police/courts. The rape case I was involved in, abrasions were a key piece of evidence.

I've had some wild, drunken sex in my time, both indoor and out, but I've never ended up with dirt inside my vagina, or abrasions. The abrasions to the victim's body in this case were also indicative of her being dragged - grazes on her neck, arms, back and hands, and pine needles embedded in her hair - but obviously the Swedes didn't see that bit of the crime, they turned up later.

And since 2 rapes a week were reported on Stanford Campus alone in the months leading up to this case - and we know that the majority of rapes are not even reported, then I would say that their is every chance there is at least one 'Brock' at every party.

But when you start talking about the 'accountability' of anyone other than the rapist, then you are getting into victim-blaming territory. We know what Brock did. We are lucky that the Swedes were there to paint such a clear picture of what Brock did. But he doesn't appear to think he did anything wrong, seems to think he's a victim of 'campus lifestyle' - therein lies the problem.

One or two pine needles up a woman's vagina is "par for the course!" You do know they are stiff and sharp and pokey?

gonetoseeamanaboutadog
I'm uncomfortable with trying a case based on how 'unlikely' a woman would be to have sexual relations outside, without lube, with someone she'd just met, on the ground.

I went to college and seemed to spend a lot of time listening to stories of danger, sexual encounters and choices which were inexplicable in the cold light of day. That's not to say I think we should assume women choose to do these things but equally we can't assume they never do.

They dont do them and then say it was rape very often as your own experience shows.

It seems like the burden of proof she be on a woman's partner to prove that she did want rough sex, rather than it be all women's burden to prove that they didn't want rough sex in the event that they are raped.

She=should

'I have already said that if a woman volunteers the word 'no' or is unconscious, that is simple. The trickier point is whether a woman who has gone all the way up to the cup of tea point can ever be reasonably assumed to be willing to have a cup of tea if she doesn't say no. Not everyone who has been raped has resisted and said 'no', making it far from simple in my book.'

Gone - when I read statements like this I honestly wonder what sort of world some people live in.

When neurotypical adults who are not suffering from any delusions or mental illness go about their daily lives, they know very clearly how to engage with other people. They know how to give other people personal space, they know not to randomly stick things into people's bodies etc. If someone genuinely isn't able to read other people and does things to hurt them, or does inappropriate things like sitting in their laps or putting their fingers in their mouths, we generally assume there's something wrong with them.

And yet

some women believe that man can be inches from a woman, touching her, kissing her etc and genuinely and honestly not know whether she's enjoying/engaging or not. How on earth does that work? If a person is so close to another person as to be right on top of them and yet is unable to figure out what that other person thinks or feels about what's happening then they must have some serious issues, issues that make them dangerous to other people.

If a man genuinely cares that his partner is enjoying what's happening, then all he has to do is open his mouth and say 'how's that?' 'is that ok?' The idea that he might suddenly become mute, and just plough on regardless with no thought to whether the woman he's sticking things into is even liking it, and that that sort of behaviour is understandable and unproblematic is absolutely monstrous. The one and only time anybody should plough on ahead and do something to someone else without first being sure absolutely sure the other person wants it is in an emergency situation where such behaviour is totally necessary. There is absolutely no excuse for a man using a woman's body without being as sure as he possible can be that she's ok with that.

'I have personally been part of sexual activity when I didn't really want to and I wish I hadn't. But it wasn't assault. I wasn't pressured.' You don't have to answer, gone, obviously, but why did you participate in sexual activity you didn't want? And do you honestly believe your partner in those situations was genuinely not aware that you didn't want it?

Here's a novel thought: rather than saying to women that men will do anything to get their penis into them and so women must modify their behaviour to ensure that doesn't happen against their will, how about we say to men that actually they don't have a right to put their penis into anybody and so if they do put their penis (or anything else) into somebody they'd better be damn sure that somebody wanted, otherwise they could be up on charges.

I actually don't think it's too much to ask that men ensure 100% that they have consent every single time they have sex.