"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

When it comes to sex, they might simply going through the motions without objecting, even saying 'yes fine' if asked specifically about consent. In those circumstances the presence of consent would not make the sex consensual. It's more complicated.

It's not, if there is no consent, it's rape, whether or not the woman reports it as a crime.

The responsibility to ensure he has consent (regardless of what he thinks he knows) may not be a responsibility that he fully grasps.

So, you agree that talking to men about consent is important then, good.

Again, not something I can imagine a feminist struggling with.

Please stop being patronising about feminists, it's really dull now. You have no clue what feminists might struggle with, because they aren't a homogeneous mass or hive mind. Are you seriously saying that feminists can't be raped? Because that's what you've repeatedly implied, which is not only offensive but factually incorrect. Statements like these seriously undermine whatever point you're trying to make.

I have no desire to get a rapist off, to excuse coercion or to make women who have been abused feel responsible. .... I don't have much patience with the feminist refusal to see the dangers to women of saying this issue is simple. .... I do think that feminists telling women this is impossible and any imbalance in the power dynamic must have been a deliberate act of coercion could potentially lead to miscarriages of justice. That's not apologising for rape at all - it's a disagreement about definitions of unwanted sex and rape.

You've contradicted yourself there. If sex is coerced, even if there is a verbal yes, it is STILL rape. The legal position is really clear. See how easy it is now? Plus, as has been explained to you, repeatedly, this isn't a feminist issue, it's a human rights issue. Shall I do it in capitals for you? Maybe it would help you to remember that neither the government nor the CPS has any particular feminist credentials, the opposite is true in fact, and they made the distinction.

No matter how much mental gymnastics you want to do to come up with increasingly unlikely scenarios to excuse rapists, consent will always be simple.

Enthusiastic consent, without coercion should be the lowest bar that men set for themselves when engaging in sexual activity with a partner. The kind of men that fail to do this are probably not men who should be engaging in sexual activity with anything other than their own hands.

I feel that the judge's discretionary sentencing was unacceptably light given the convicted's actions and lack of remorse! This case has made me sick.
I think that there is some confusion about whether to call this man a rapist because he wasn't convicted of rape due to a legal technicality (no penetration with his penis) enshrined in California law; he was convicted of what is sometimes seen as the less heinous crime of sexual assault. So legally is not a rapist. I think that he is actually one!

I fervently hope that this case has highlighted this legal loophole enough to be addressed as I strongly and firmly feel that any unwanted sexual contact be it with a penis, finger or foreign object should be legally considered as rape! Judging from the universal outcry, this crime is viewed as rape by the public. And so it should be imp! The law must be reviewed to address this discrepancy. Additionally, I hope that judge's discretion is reviewed as I understand the sentencing judge has precedent with handing down light sentences to convicts he perceives as having potential. For a man with the responsibility to help uphold and shape the law, this case must raise questions as to his fitness to fulfill his job!
Finally, I am in awe of the victim. Her impact statement is one of the most powerful pieces of writing I have ever read. I hope that she continues to find the courage to heal and rebuild her life.

Fusion
I would like to say something about the highlighted part of what you said here:

"Again you are focusing on form, not function. When someone is moving inside someone else's body, there are very many ways in which what's happening can and are interpreted at any one moment in time. But all action is an act within a context. People may feel their experience is clumsy, bored, weird, painful, regrettable, annoying, irritating, enraging, sad, kinky, devastating, objectifying, degrading or whatever and still know it's not rape.. because an act in context is defined by all the events leading up to it and all the events after it and in general relationship (where all usual caveats apply), the difference between someone having sex to harm you and having sex with any other intention is really very clear"

I think that some men are doing harmful sex, but believe it is normal and not doing to harm someone and that some girls are going along with it and consenting to it because they feel that they could not get out of it, or that it is what is expected of them, or what they have to do to have a boyfriend. On one post a girl mentioned it was not until she read Anne of Green Gables and saw how Anne was treated by her boyfriend that she got the confidence to jilt her very nasty one.

This where the pressure to have sex long before someone is mentally ready and lack of sex education about relationships comes in, I think - as well as previous experiences that may have lead to a young person having already lost any sense of their own right to have boundaries and expectations about what they want.

I also think the girl may have not properly consented and feel it was all wrong, and not know clearly whether or not it was rape and to not feel able to report it as such.

Fusion... I don't think the constant digs about feminists just not understanding real life are at me, not you. Your posts are really clear in that respect, where mine are saying that enthusiastic consent should be the bar and that is what gone takes issue with.

Unfortunately it seems that gone thinks that if you believe that enthusiastic consent should be the bar, you're incapable of knowing that there are times where, for whatever reason, women go along with things and end up enjoying it in the end, which is entirely different to being coerced into having sex you don't want.

I tend to worry slightly about women who have this need to show that men just accidentally rape women, for fairly obvious reasons. Well, I worry about them up til they start making patronising comments about feminists not understanding the real world anyway. I am human

Oh, and for a sexual act to be rape, it doesn't therefore mean that a woman HAS to report it to anyone, or even tell anyone.

This is really basic stuff.

fusionconfusion Wed 15-Jun-16 15:59:01
Yet people sadly do choose to have sex without feeling enthusiastic about it, and not because their partner has coerced them

Well of course! And that's not rape

What about the idea that there should be enthusiastic consent in order for it not to be rape?

What about the idea that there should be enthusiastic consent in order for it not to be rape?

Answered that already for you kind.

Unfortunately it seems that gone thinks that if you believe that enthusiastic consent should be the bar, you're incapable of knowing that there are times where, for whatever reason, women go along with things and end up enjoying it in the end, which is entirely different to being coerced into having sex you don't want.

And I know you want fusion to answer, but it's bad form to expect someone to answer for an idea they don't seem to hold, don't you think?

Today the judge explained that he had given a low sentence because Brock showed remorse, which the victim appeared not to be acknowledging.

What. The. Fuck.

Brock has expressed regret for getting drunk. He has not to my knowledge expressed remorse for violating another human being. No fucking surprise his victim hadn't acknowledged his remorse.

PalmerViolet
You've contradicted yourself there. If sex is coerced, even if there is a verbal yes, it is STILL rape. The legal position is really clear. See how easy it is now?

The legal position does not seem to be easy or clear in cases like that once the law (CPS, judge, jury all people like we are here) is actually involved in prosecuting it. Arguments will be brought up and probably believed about why it is not clear and an acquittal likely to be given.

"which the victim appeared not to be acknowledging. "

Given her statement about what his lawyer put her through, given his dad's comments etc, what fucking remorse would that be?

He assaulted her. It's not up to the judge to censure her for not forgiving him, or whatever, and make a low sentence as a result.

Dick.

Kind

Of course a legal argument can be made about the defendant's beliefs at the time of the incident. coercion contradicts the "freedom and capacity" part of the law. Whether the jury consider it proven beyond reasonable doubt doesn't change the clarity of the law.

mrshathaway he is very remorseful he can't study at Stanford or be an orthopaedic surgeon. Its put him right off his t-bone steaks.

Judge removed from an assault case

www.salon.com/2016/06/15/brock_turner_judges_credibility_gone_prosecutors_have_persky_removed_from_a_similar_sex_assault_case/

Plato thought that a crime committed while intoxicated should recieve a greater punishment - part for the crime itself, and part for allowing oneself to get into a state where one commits a crime. A double dose of responsibility. Not a bad idea. Certainly much much better than using intoxication as a get-out clause.

It is also interesting that you think as someone who has been raped I can't claim any privilege in knowing what rape is or might be.

No fusion, since you ask, as sorry as I am that it happened to you, I don't think you can claim privilege in defining it or how it happens. You can experience something without having the breadth of experience that would justify taking a more privileged position than anyone else. I would be more interested in a definition from someone who worked for Women's Aid and had a professional knowledge of a variety of coercive relationships and survivors of rape.

Perhaps I wasn't clear enough, about coerced sex being a form of rape. I certainly didn't mean to suggest that the only kind of rape is when one person forces themselves upon another.

I also think the legal system is in dire need of a definition of rape that includes both genders. Someone earlier on this thread remarked that it wasn't possible for men to perform if they weren't into it, which is rubbish.

felas I suppose it might be possible women could be accused of lying if it got out that some women decide afterwards whether or not they actually gave their consent to sex. The fact that it could possibly be distorted and exploited is no excuse for not examining the issue and seeking truth. It's common knowledge that many women wait as long as twenty years without feeling quite sure if they were raped or not. No one is accusing women of lying here. Given the level of soul-searching that can go on, it's really strange that you think this is all irrelevant. And I'll discuss what I want to, thanks all the same. As a woman, you know. :)

What would rape look like if verbal consent was given? If it's so simple?

Do you actually ever read through what you write, gone?

I would answer if I knew wtf you were talking about gone. I'm totally baffled.

I didn't say ultimate privilege. I said any privilege. Would you still say I had none of this?

You are not 'sorry' I was raped, you have stated you care not one particle about my view and functionally you demonstrate remarkable disregard for women's experiences in the general as well as the particular. It is an interesting stance and I am genuinely curious as to your motivation and what in your learnibg history has led you to such unusual views

You certainly seem to feel privileged enough to seek to define rape in vague circumlocutions so that a woman can feel raped while giving verbal consent and the man can be entirely oblivious but a woman who has been raped knows nothing pf the 'breadth of experience' of rape.

In the end what any of us view as most universal is what is most personal to us but at least I am owning my experience and history in stating my case. You, apparently, are doing this for the larks and have a much broader understanding of rape than I ever could. Do you want to step up and own why you believe that in a more open way or do you actually believe you are a more credible speaker on matters of rape because people with lived experience don't have your imagined clarity on these things? You know, the one that concurs with legal definitions as well as lived experience?

And very very interesting you would have interest in a 'professional' view of rape/dv/coercion. Do you assume I don't have professional training in this area because I have lived experience or is it simply that only 'expert' authority matters when it comes to women's lives (unless you are the one talking)?

Detestable
Whether the jury consider it proven beyond reasonable doubt doesn't change the clarity of the law
What I am trying to say is that whatever the clarity of the law itself is, the defending barrister's arguments, the lack of actual proof, the judge's and the jury's perceptions seem to show they do not find cases easy, simple or clear.

In some cases the defending barrister is a highly skilled, very well (privately) paid one who will devote themselves to showing it is neither clearly rape nor a simple case even when the hard pressed defence does the best it can and So the law itself as some abstract ideal being clear does not mean as much as it might.

Unless it is allowed to be discussed why there may be lack of clarity, how things may be seen as complicated and exactly why it may be rape in spite of those factors, rape victims themselves are not going to be helped.

The judge may not even mention the rape myths list till it is too late, and not all of them are covered anyway in my opinion on the CPS or even Mumsnet. The myths may need back up with expert witnesses too which would be expensive, and I doubt such witnesses are brought in often.

Why would rape myths need back up with expert witnesses?

Those of you still corresponding with 'gone' after she compared us to rapists - you have more patience and tolerance than I have. I'll buy you all an orange for Christmas, as my dad would say!

I won't be giving her the time of day or dignify her with a response, here or on any other thread.

" the judge's and the jury's perceptions seem to show they do not find cases easy, simple or clear. "

Yes, I think this is true, at least for the jury. The judge should be clear, though.

. I also think it's true for other juries (having been on one myself) on other crimes. There's definitely a place for better education of juries, maybe a half day at the start of each jury service to cover the key points of law relevant to the charge. Costly, maybe, but there's a lot of waiting around anyway and I think that it would be money well spent.

Felascloak Wed 15-Jun-16 20:55:51
Why would rape myths need back up with expert witnesses?

Sorry, I was rushing. I meant expert witnesses could explain how rape victims actually might behave following a rape ( in specific instances) so the jury could understand them better.

For example, some time ago I read a study of how college
women who had been raped in the date acquaintance/rape context might actually go on to go have contact with the rapist after the rape. A jury might think that meant they had consented all along, or had ended up by consenting, but in fact that behaviour on the victim's part would be a way of minimising what had happened, - almost a role play to try to transform what happened; or it could be a way of attempting to take control. Or, it might just be a sort of giving up all will. Ordinary people who might be on the jury might well not understand it.

More particularly, as an example of the need for someone to explain something to the jury, I was once on one for a rape within marriage/ common law partnership. The judge definitely made ignorant assumptions about the victim's predicament at the summing up, and more or less told us she should not be believed. I happened to know he was wrong about one point he had made to outline his reasons for this. I told the rest of the jury why. The other women jury members concurred, then the others, who were mostly men, believed we knew what we were talking about and understood. it was all a very difficult decision, but there was a guilty verdict for that charge. You could say I was the rather pathetic expert witness that time. But it was only by chance I knew about what the judge mentioned.

No one else during this case pointed out to the jury what I did when we went back to our room to decide the verdict. The barrister for the prosecution could not have rebutted what the judge had said, as I think she had had no more chance to do so after the judge made those remarks. She was very young and may not have known about it herself anyway.

Is it wrong to discuss a case if you were on the jury? I think it may be. That is why I am not giving more detail about this case given that Mumsnet is not private.