"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

Wonderful letter from Biden. Especially about it being the rapist and not the victim who has something to answer for.

sorry, that should be.... alcohol will not change someone's basic disposition.

Underthegreenwoodtree your statement at Thu 09-Jun-16 20:17:27 was spot on.

I don't think most people would choose sex behind a dumpster. Just because some women would or might consent to this, doesn't make it the norn. We have to be very careful about looking for crazy scenarios when the obvious one is staring us in the face. I think there has been some degree of water-muddying and that serves only one person, the rapist.

Very sad.That poor woman. That utter shit of a man.I think men should be very careful what they do because one day the law is going to catch up with them. We've seen this in recent years. Men who have sex with any woman they are completely certain is a willing participant could find themselves in real trouble.

Is it too much to ask a man to be sure that the woman he is penetrating really wants this?

Rape in the United States is defined, as below.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rape_in_the_United_States

"Department of Justice as “Penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without the consent of the victim.” While definitions and terminology of rape vary by jurisdiction in the United States, the FBI revised its definition to eliminate a requirement that the crime involve an element of force.[1]"

This is different to UK law. If Wickepdia is to be believed!

sparrowhawk

If the only way a man is 100% sure that he has consent is by getting consent verbally, then yes, he should get consent verbally. I'd rather that 1 billion men were slightly inconvenienced by having to having to ask 'are you ok with this?' 'Are you sure you want to go ahead?' than 1 woman was raped. I don't think that's too high a standard to have.

If a man doesn't get verbal consent, and he goes ahead and has sex with a woman who doesn't want it, then yes, that is, by definition, rape. I don't see any grey area there.

You're missing the point you were replying to, I think by inserting "If the only way" and "who doesn't want it".

Verbal consent is never the only way and I've never explicitly (verbally) given it and the "who doesn't want it" goes without saying.

The problem with getting a conviction as I said earlier is that "she said yes" vs "no I didn't" (with no other evidence whatsoever) must return a not guilty verdict. I don't see that verbal consent is all you're making it out to be but the inability to give verbal consent ie. being unconscious means yes, they were raped every single time.

mrshathaway

I was giving a personal example of a gray area which fitted a previous poster's suggestion.

So, while my husband was a willing participant when I started the BJ, he passed out and I continued for a short while (a couple of minutes, I guess) before noticing, stopping and huffing.

Imagining that he pressed charges against me, do you think he was sexually assaulted and I should be found guilty?

Was his consent withdrawn the second he passed out or when I noticed a few minutes later?

Whatever your answer to the above, would it be the same if it had occurred during PIV?

My example is completely separate to the rape by Brock. I'm just trying to demonstrate why I feel there can be a gray area on very rare occasions. If you don't think this is a slightly gray area then fine, but I do.

Yes but in your example the man was your husband and you had already started. I think a different standard is applied when you're with someone new or even relatively new where there could be some doubt. So in this case say the victim did appear willing and enthusiastic but then passed out mid way Brock should have stopped immediately. Bit hard to miss when your face is right on top of theirs.

I also love the fact the papers are now all over this and are dragging up dirt from his past. Also jurors are refusing to sit under judge Persky in a new trial. I'm glad that despite the ludicrously low sentence he is being punished by the media and strength of public disgust at what he did and his pathetic sentence.

Simmi

So how about if it had been a one night stand and not my husband?

Brock should have stopped immediately. Bit hard to miss when your face is right on top of theirs.

Yes! I'm not suggesting anything else about his case.

Yes if it was a one night stand you should have stopped as soon as you realised the recipient had passed out. It sounds like you did so with your husband anyway. I do think a higher standard of care should be applied to, for example, one night stands as opposed to say ones spouse. It's all about context.

Imagining that he pressed charges against me, do you think he was sexually assaulted and I should be found guilty?

Do you really think he would press charges? That's the part that's slightly ludicrous, isn't it.

Imaging we're in Cloud Cuckoo Land for a moment, and your husband did decide to press charges against you, and it did go to trial (careful of the pigs flying over yonder), you would then be cross-examined, and almost certainly found not guilty.

If somebody else found themselves in a similar scenario - willingly and enthusiastically participating in consensual sex before passing out from too much alcohol, and then discovering their sexual partner hadn't stopped what they were doing immediately - they could also decide to press charges, and see where it got them.

Couldn't they?

I don't know why people feel the need to insist on making this so much harder than it is.

Or, alternatively, what it boils down to is this...

If a person doesn't feel as if they have been raped (by their non-rapist life partner), then it's highly unlikely that they will press charges.

Hell, most people who have been raped don't press changes.

So I think in your sleeping-husband-BJ scenario, you're pretty safe.

Do you really think he would press charges? That's the part that's slightly ludicrous, isn't it.

Yes. Which is why I changed it to a hypothetical "one night stand".

and then discovering their sexual partner hadn't stopped what they were doing immediately - they could also decide to press charges, and see where it got them.

And as a jury member, what would be your opinion assuming they did stop a few minutes later when they noticed?

Anyway, I gave that situation after someone said my comments were disturbing when I agreed that in very very few circumstances, it isn't black and white. That was the only point I wanted to make.

Fair enough enteryourPassword, cases like Brian Banks's show it's important to always do a thorough investigation rather than lean towards presuming the man is always guilty. There's also been a recent case in the uk where a woman (trainee midwife) was sentenced to 15 months prison for false rape/abuse claims against her bf who wanted to end things with her. I think this sends out the right message.

From Joe Biden's open letter:
'We will speak out against those who seek to engage in plausible deniability. Those who know that this is happening, but don’t want to get involved. Who believe that this ugly crime is “complicated.”'

Apologists on this thread, why are you doing it? Why is it so important that when you read about someone who has very obviously been raped/ sexually assaulted your impulse is so quickly to try to think up ways where men might get into situations where they rape someone 'by accident'. It's really really unsettling to read, and in some ways not so very far off some of the young men on some of the US sites commenting 'everyone fingers drunk girls, no crime to see here' about this case.

I know you are all saying that you are not talking about this case, but really your mental gymnastics might not be victim blaming, but they certainly are perpetrator exonerating.

Good news - he has been banned from swimming for the USA for life. Bad news - he is due to be released Sept. 2nd so barely three months in a cushy jail. But does that really matter now? There are very many people worldwide who know the name Brock Turner, he is tainted forever because of the non acceptance or understanding of what he has done, from him, his family and his friends. The fundraising page for his parents on FB has had to be taken down, hardly surprising.

This crime is not complicated at all. In a normal scenario, he approaches her outside, they start making out, but then she passes out. All he had to do was stop and let's say he then got help because she was out of it and unconsious... his life would now be very different.

But no, he was determined to get his rocks off, he lied saying she consented to some of what she did (yet the swedish guys said she was out cold), this was him having no regard whatsoever of the concept of "consent". He is not some innocent boy who drank too much, this is a violent sexual deviant who has tried to make out that she said yes.

His father, whilst trying to make it all better and get his son off the hook, has made it a hell of a lot worse for his son because his non acceptance of what his son has done and his phrase "20 minutes of action" went viral.. He thought he could get his son off and was fixated on keeping him out of jail.. The ban from USA Swimming has come about because of publicity. Good. Thank god for social media.

Very interesting to read Reddit this morning

If he'd accepted responsibility in the first place he could probably have plea bargained to a less serious conviction and virtually no publicity. Ironically he might have got a longer/harder prison sentence (hardly possible to get a lighter one really), but he would have avoided the publicity he's getting now, as the case would be just one more campus sexual assault statistic and so of little interest (even at Stanford as such cases are sadly routine).

There are some really ignorant comments on here.

I was raped. He wasn't a stranger. He had groomed me. But thats not the point.

I said no once and tried to push him off. He continued and I shut down. Was my silence perceived as consent? Would it be considered by a jury to be consent?

I will never know. Because I blamed myself for more than a decade. I didn't report him.

I think this sums it up... a statement from a former Attorney, now a sports writer who has suffered sexual assault herself.

^For many of these guys, especially guys in revenue sports, from the time they are little, they are put on a pedestal and treated like gods among men. These guys grow up with a sense of entitlement, thinking they should get what they want, when they want. If that is someone's body, then so be it. It is reinforced by so many people throughout their careers.

College coaches are also trying to protect their jobs. ... But I really think it goes beyond that, and coaches have convinced themselves that it's their team against the world, and women become collateral damage in all of that. It's the idea of, "This woman accusing this player of rape is just trying to destroy our team."

The district attorneys in these cases are often protecting their jobs as well, and most of the time they aren't even in court. A lot of this is about re-election or someone seeking higher office, so they don't want to pursue cases by making fools of themselves and losing a huge case. So much of the attitude surrounding how schools and prosecutors handle rape cases is about self-preservation"

Liz your rapist would probably argue that he perceived your silence as consent, but any sane person would say that it is very obvious when someone has just given in and he's a lying raping bastard.

I'm really sorry that happened to you and that you blamed yourself for so long. It wasn't your fault.

I like that "plausible deniability" quote

I Never understand that attitude on these types of threads

And actually some of the comments on this one have proved to me that women cant win

Rape victim states that they were raped by a friend in a bed after a night out....cue posters saying that she knew what she was doing when she went home with him, his word against hers, cant have been that bad as it was a nice comfy bed and she wasnt injured...there is probably a plausible reason why the friend thought she consented

Rape victim States (i know its not the case in this instance) that she was dragged behind a dumpster and raped...and there is still a plausible reason why she would have consented

What is actually wrong with people?

EYP - if you continued to give BJ to a one night stand partner who was unconscious, and that partner woke up and realised what you did and felt you'd assaulted them, then you could be facing a legitimate assault charge. Because no matter how drunk you are, or how little you know a person, if you're engaging with them sexually it is your duty to know that they are ok with what you're doing. Whether that person wants to press charges is entirely up to them, but that doesn't change what they feel about the situation.

You seem entirely focused on conviction. None of my rapists were convicted. I was still raped though. It doesn't change one fucking thing for me.

What is actually wrong with people?

Quite!

Roussette I really wonder what the actual consquences for Brock will be. He's from an affluent white middle-class family who have enough social pull and influence that 39 family friends and contacts were persuaded to write letters of support, despite knowing the details of the crime.

Examples here:

www.theguardian.com/us-news/2016/jun/07/stanford-sexual-assault-letters-brock-turner-judge

Leslie Rasmussen's is the most infamous piece of victim-blaming, and his father's the most unthinkably awful (20 minutes' action; lost his appetite, etc) but the rest of them all follow the same line of reasoning: I am a nice, respectable person > Brock is someone I know, from another nice, respectable family > I would never condone rape --> therefore Brock cannot be a rapist.

This has all been a misunderstanding. An accident. A cruel example of political correctness. This 'mistake', these 'events', 'a few bad decisions' I don't think anybody, at any point in the statements, can bring themselves to use the word 'assault', let alone mention the specifics have 'shattered' Brock. He is 'terrified and traumatised'. Being put in prison could 'dwindle the fire in his heart'.

Brock is the only person being held accountable for the actions of other irresonsible adults. (his grandparents)

I will forever believe that he of all people would never do something like that. (classmate)

This is completely different from a woman getting kidnapped and raped as she is walking to her car in a parking lot. (Leslie Rasmussen)

He's completely surrounded by friends and family who a) refuse to believe this was rape or assault, b) refuse to believe he did anything at all, and c) focus purely on the terrible emotional effect it's had on him.

I suspect that Brock will now lead a quieter, less outwardly successful life than he anticipated -- but that he will still exist within the comfortable bubble perpetuated by these people. Some family friend will give him a job. He will never be short of money. He won't be socially ostacised. He'll get out of jail and these people will be lining up to comfort him about his ordeal.

If you read Leslie Rasmussen's statement about the outrage her original testimony caused, there's very, very little sense that the public outcry has actually altered her thinking. Again, it's all a (wilful) misunderstanding:

I understand that this appeal has now provided an opportunity for people to misconstrue my ideas into a distortion that suggests I sympathize with sex offenses and those who commit them or that I blame the victim involved.

And it's also painfully self-involved:

Now, my choices to defer college to write and play music, to finally introduce 10 years of hard work to a national audience while working consistently and intentionally on my own personal and professional integrity, has led to an uproar of judgement and hatred unleashed on me, my band and my family."

www.brooklynvegan.com/northside-cuts-band-good-english-connected-to-brock-turner-rape-case/

To these individuals, a few people saying what Brock did was unacceptable would not be enough, but millions of people saying it's unacceptable is a crazy, social-media-obsessed, hateful mob. There's nothing we can say to change their minds.

I wouldn't be surpised if, over the next few days, the media will need to find a new angle to keep the story running, and it becomes more about 'internet shaming', disproportionate public responses, mass hysteria etc, with Brock, his family and the other people who wrote testimonials portrayed as victims.

Or the defence angle, which is basically that the college culture of alcohol and promiscuity made him do it (pitifully reminiscent of Chicago: Roxy Hart blaming 'too much jazz and liquor'), will get picked up, and we can all enjoy some neo-Puritan lectures.

It's great to see the majority response has been 'this is appalling' -- but I don't think it's changed any of the people involved, and I expect a backlash soon.

Apologists on this thread, why are you doing it? Why is it so important that when you read about someone who has very obviously been raped/ sexually assaulted your impulse is so quickly to try to think up ways where men might get into situations where they rape someone 'by accident'. It's really really unsettling to read, and in some ways not so very far off some of the young men on some of the US sites commenting 'everyone fingers drunk girls, no crime to see here' about this case.

^This

You seem entirely focused on conviction.

I wouldn't say that but surely a conviction is what most people want. A guilty person being convicted means justice is being done. It can't undo the crime obviously.

Did I miss understand your point?

Valerie you are most likely right (unfortunately) but his name will go before him, he even has a Wiki page all about what he has done. So whilst he will live comfortably in that bubble in years to come, setting foot outside that bubble is going to be very difficult for him. He will forever have to be looking over his shoulder because whilst it might end up as yesterday's news at some point, people don't forget because the outrage is global.